f*    APR  7  1904  *j 
BX  8388  .A4 

Methodist  Episcopal  church! 
The  judicial  decisions  of 
the  General  Conference  of 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/judicialdecisionOOmeth 


J 


THE 

JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 

OF  THE 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE 

OF  THE 

METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


WITH  NOTES 


Ay 

R.  J.  COOKE,  D.D. 

With  an  Introduction 
By  th£  R£y.  Dr.  Jam£S  M.  Bucklet 

CINCINNATI:  JENNINGS  AND  PYE 
NEW   YOEK:   EATON   AND  MAINS 


ooptbiqht,  1903,  by 
Jennings  and  Ptb 


PREFACE. 


The  work  herewith  presented  to  the  respect- 
ful consideration  of  the  administrators  of  the 
Discipline  must  not  be  accepted  in  any  sense  as 
an  intended  Treatise  on  Ecclesiastical  Law,  nor 
as  an  Interpretation  of  Law,  nor  as  an  Expo- 
sition of  the  Jurisprudence  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  It  makes  no  pretensions  to 
the  importance  such  works  might  justly  claim, 
since  its  only  object  is  to  contribute  what  it  may 
to  convenience,  consistency,  and  continuity  in 
the  administration  of  the  law  of  the  Church. 

It  would  have  been  much  more  agreeable  to 
trace  the  evolution  of  our  Church  Courts  from 
the  fractional  and  irregular  Conferences  of  early 
Methodism,  and,  therewith,  the  development  of 
our  Ecclesiastical  Law  from  the  period  of  the 
personal  administration  of  Wesley  to  the  ju- 
3 


Preface. 


dicial  utterances  of  the  Delegated  General  Con- 
ference ;  but  this  would  have  led  far  away  from 
the  primary,  and  while  less  ambitious,  yet  no 
less  useful,  purpose  of  gathering  in  compact 
form  the  decisions  of  what  had  legally  become 
the  highest  judicial  body  in  the  Church,  and 
extracting  from  these  decisions  the  fundamental 
principles  which  may  serve  as  precedents  in 
judicial  administration. 

The  Journals  of  the  General  Conference  are 
a  rich  mine  for  historical  investigation,  and  he 
who  would  know  the  fons  et  origo  of  Methodist 
history  must  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  these 
documents,  for  here  may  be  seen  the  play  of 
those  forces  which  are  at  once  an  expression  of, 
and  a  contribution  to,  the  world-wide  expansion 
and  internal  development  of  the  Church;  the 
beginnings  of  institutions,  and  of  far-reaching 
movements,  the  foundation  and  growth  of  that 
system  of  law,  itself  an  illustration  of  our  mar- 
velous history,  which,  while  being  strong  is  yet 
flexible,  while  grounded  in  justice  is  yet  tem- 
pered with  Christian  charity,  and  which  seeks 


4 


Preface. 


only  the  purity  of  the  Church  and  the  protection 
of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  her  memhers. 

In  these  Journals  there  are  contained  de- 
cisions on  legal  questions  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance, which,  taken  together,  constitute  a  body 
of  precedents  as  valuable  to  the  administrator 
of  the  Discipline  as  the  decisions  of  a  Supreme 
Court  are  to  the  student  of  civil  law.  It  may 
be  that  here  and  there  a  decision  will  be  found 
which  has  become  obsolete  by  reason  of  subse- 
quent legislation,  as  is  often  the  case  in  civil 
law,  but  that  decident  specimen  is  still  valuable 
as  material  for  history.  The  supremely  impor- 
tant matter,  however,  is  that  consistency  in  the 
judicial  decisions  of  the  General  Conference 
should  be  maintained.  The  importance  of  this 
will  be  readily  conceded.  Let  it  once  become  a 
justifiable  opinion  that  the  decisions  of  the 
highest  Court  of  Appeal  in  the  Church  are 
purely  arbitrary,  and  neither  based  upon  nor 
in  any  degree  influenced  by  precedent,  and  at 
once  the  authority  of  that  Court  is  contemned. 
Kow,  since  each  General  Conference  has  a  new 


5 


Preface. 


Committee  on  Judiciary,  it  will  not  be  surpris- 
ing if  opposing  judgments  on  similar  cases 
should  be  found  in  cases  where  the  decisions  of 
previous  Judiciary  Committees  have  not  been 
consulted.  But  such  a  consultation  at  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  during  the  trial  of  a  case  in- 
volves an  examination  of  the  Journal  of  each 
General  Conference  from  the  beginning,  a  duty 
which  for  its  careful  performance,  at  such  a 
time  and  amid  such  circumstances,  is  almost, 
if  not  wholly,  impossible. 

The  task  herein  undertaken,  therefore,  was 
to  assemble  these  decisions  together,  to  classify 
them,  and  to  state  in  unambiguous  terms  the 
fundamental  principle  of  each,  thus  affording 
a  convenient  handbook  of  reference  for  all  ad- 
ministrators of  the  Discipline  to  any  case  upon 
which  there  is  a  recorded  decision. 

It  may  possibly  occur  to  some  that,  since  all 
judicial  decisions  of  the  General  Conference 
prior  to  1844  are  common  to  both  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  it  would  have  added  to  the  in- 


6 


Pkeface. 


terest,  if  not  to  the  importance,  of  this  work 
if  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Church  South  were  also  included. 
It  is  perhaps  true  that  such  an  inclusion  would 
show  the  agreements  which  have  been  main- 
tained and  the  differences  which  have  arisen  in 
the  judicial  economy  of  the  two  Churches  since 
that  time.  But  while  this  might  prove  to  be  of 
some  value,  it  is  clear  that  to  have  done  this 
would  also  have  been  a  departure  from  the  orig- 
inal object  in  view. 

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  not  all  the 
decisions  here  cited  are  judicial  in  a  technical 
sense ;  i.  e.,  they  did  not  emanate  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Judiciary  in  the  trial  of  a  case.  They 
are,  nevertheless,  of  a  judicial  character,  since 
they  were  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  in 
the  exercise  of  its  judicial  powers.  Such  excep- 
tions are  marked  N.  J.  A  few  notes  have  also 
been  added.  They  are  not  intended  to  be,  and 
it  is  hoped  that  they  will  not  be  understood  as 
being,  controversial  in  any  sense.  They  are 
simply  intended  to  be  helpful  to  a  clearer  im- 


7 


Preface. 


derstanding  of  the  text  or  of  the  principle  in-" 
volved. 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  express  my 
thanks  to  the  Rev.  Bishop  D.  A.  Goodsell, 
LL.  D.,  for  eminently  judicious  suggestions,  and 
to  the  Rev,  Bishop  Isaac  W.  Joyce,  LL.  D., 
and  Mr.  Robert  T.  Miller  for  the  loan  of  Gen- 
eral Conference  Journals  now  becoming  very 
scarce. 


8 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Chapter  Pagk 
Introduction,  ------  11 

I.  General  Principi,es,  -----  17 

II.  Appeals,  36 

III.  Bishops,  59 

IV.  Conferences,   75 

V.  Elections,    -      --      --  --89 

VI.  Membership,    ------  99 

VII.  Orders,   102 

VIII.  Preachers,  -      -  107 

IX.  Trials,   112 

Notes,  -  139 

Appendix — The  Constitution,       -       -  158 

Index,  167 


INTRODUCTION. 

To  INTRODUCE  Dr.  R.  J.  Cooke  to  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  was  long  since  rendered 
an  impossibility  by  his  established  reputation  as 
an  Educator,  Professor  in  Divinity,  Preacher, 
Legislator,  and  Author.  To  introduce  this,  his 
latest  production,  to  the  favorable  consideration 
of  all  who  have  to  make  laws  for  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  or  administer  them,  can  be 
fitting  only  as  it  emphasizes  the  aim  of  the  work, 
its  need  and  the  manner  of  its  performance. 

The  aim  is  not  to  furnish  the  reader  with 
the  text  of  the  rules  and  regulations  which  gov- 
ern the  Church — the  Book  of  Discipline  con- 
tains these — nor  to  describe  how  and  why  they 
were  enacted.  The  Journal  of  the  General  Con- 
ference is  the  final  authority  upon  these  points. 
It  is  to  state  and,  when  necessary,  to  explain  the 
judicial  decisions  which  have  been  made  in  the 
11 


Introduction. 


lengthening  history  of  the  Church.  If  such  a 
work  is  necessary  to  the  State,  it  can  not  be 
superfluous  in  any  organized  ecclesiastical  body 
in  which  exists  a  final  court  of  appeal.  It  is  all 
the  more  valuable  when  the  powers  center  in  one 
deliberative  assembly  meeting  but  once  in  four 
years. 

Reports  furnish  to  Supreme  Courts  all  the 
precedents  and  their  grounds.  But  unless  the 
administrator  of  Methodist  law  carry  with  him 
in  memory  or  in  print  all  the  Journals,  he  can 
not  be  sure  whether  he  is  not  inconsistent  with 
some  previous  decision.  Even  the  Judiciary 
Committees  and  the  General  Conference  have 
been  frequently  delayed  or  embarrassed  for  lack 
of  accessible  materials  for  forming  a  judgment. 
This  need  is  so  great  that  certain  individuals 
have  made  summaries  for  their  own  use.  The 
Bishops  have  also  prepared  similar  compilations 
for  their  guidance. 

This  work  will  enable  all  interested  to  learn 
in  a  few  minutes  what  has  been  decided  on 
every  adjudicated  question  which  has  originated 
in  or  been  sent  on  appeal  to  the  General  Con- 
12 


Inteoduction. 


ference.  It  bears  marks  of  care  and  thorough- 
ness ;  its  comments  are  lucid  and  pertinent,  and 
it  can  but  be  helpful  both  to  those  who  know, 
and  those  who  wish  to  know  but  can  not  pay 
the  price,  in  time,  for  original  research. 

It  should  be  a  work  of  permanent  value,  and 
in  succeeding  editions  a  few  supplementary 
pages  with  current  decisions  will  keep  it  in  time 
and  tune  with  the  progress  of  the  Church. 

J.  M.  BUCKLEY. 


13 


JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 

OF  THE 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE 


CHAPTER  I. 


GElsTEEAL  PEINCIPLES. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  supreme  Judicial 
authority  within  prescribed  limits  to  enact  all  Power, 
laws  necessary  for  the  government  of  the  Church 
is  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  General 
Conference.  The  granted  right  is  given  en  bloc. 
An  anlysis  of  this  authority,  as  described  in  the 
Book  of  Discipline  and  the  Records  of  the  suc- 
cessive General  Conferences,  shows  that  it  is  of 
a  threefold  nature — Legislative,  Executive,  and 
Judicial.  But  while  this  vested  power  is  of  this 
threefold  character,  it  must  not  be  concluded 
therefrom  that  there  are  three  separate  and  dis- 
tinct divisions,  or  departments,  of  government, 
each  intrusted  with  its  appropriate  duties  and 
exercising  its  authority  independently  of  the 
others.  The  General  Conference  is  a  unit,  one 
body  in  one  place,  at  one  time;  and,  as  such, 
possesses  sovereign  authority  in  all  three  di- 
visions of  power.  Nevertheless,  the  distinction 
between  the  Legislative,  the  Executive,  and  the 
J udicial  is  definite  and  pronounced.  The  Book 
2  17 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 


of  Discipline,  paragraph  271,  provides  "The 
General  Conference  shall  carefully  review  the 
decisions  of  questions  of  law  contained  in  the 
records  and  documents  transmitted  to  it  from 
the  Judicial  Conferences,  and  in  case  of  serious 
error  therein  shall  take  such  action  as  justice 
may  require."  This  provision  is  essentially  ju- 
dicial, and  designates  a  function  already  exist- 
ing and  distinct  from  the  legislative  power, 
which  has  previously  enacted  the  law  in  accord- 
ance with  which  the  decision  is  to  he  made. 
There  is  no  infringing  of  one  function  upon  the 
other.  Legislative  authority  determines  what 
the  law  shall  be,  the  Judicial  declares  what  the 
law  is. 

Final  Court  Among  the  restrictions  referred  to  as  im- 
of  Appeal.  pQgg(j  \yj  lY^Q  organic  law,  and  which  are  for  the 
purpose  of  safeguarding  the  rights  and  liberties 
of  the  Church,  are  the  following :  "The  General 
Conference  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of 
our  Ministers  or  Preachers  of  trial  by  a  Com- 
mittee, and  of  an  Appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do 
away  the  privileges  of  our  Members  of  trial 
before  the  Society  or  by  a  Committee,  and  of  an 
Appeal."  (Discipline,  Sec.  5.)  In  addition  to 
this  the  General  Conference  itself  is  constituted 
a  Court  of  Appeal,  and  since  litigation  must 
18 


General  Principles. 


stop  somewhere,  some  time — being  the  highest 
authority  in  the  Church — it  is  a  final  Court  of 
Appeal. 

From  its  organization  till  the  institution  of  Jurisdiction. 
Judicial  Conferences  in  1872,  the  General  Con- 
ference had  original  jurisdiction  in  all  trials  of 
accused  Bishops,  who  were  amenable  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  only,  and  appellate  jurisdiction 
in  the  trials  of  Traveling  Preachers.  Now  it 
has  original  jurisdiction  only  in  cases  of  epis- 
copal maladministration :  "Complaints  against 
the  administration  of  a  Bishop  may  be  for- 
warded to  the  General  Conference  and  enter- 
tained there;  provided,  that  in  its  judgment  he 
has  had  due  notice  that  such  complaint  would 
be  made."  (Dis.  par.  221.)  In  all  other  cases 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  is 
appellate. 

But  just  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  and  others  Courts  of  Appeal  have  juris- 
diction only  in  certain  classes  of  appeals,  only 
three  classes  of  appeals  may  be  entertained,  if 
legally  made,  by  the  General  Conference. 

First.  From  the  decision  of  a  presiding 
Bishop  on  a  question  of  law  in  a  trial  before  a 
Judicial  or  an  Annual  Conference.  "A  Bishop 
shall  preside  in  the  Judicial  Conference,  and 
19 


Geneeal  Conference  Decisions. 


shall  decide  all  questions  of  law  arising  in  its 
proceedings,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  General 
Conference."    ( Dis.  par.  265.) 

Second.  From  the  findings  of  a  Judicial 
Conference  in  the  trial  of  a  Bishop.  '^A  Bishop 
shall  have  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  ensuing 
General  Conference,  if  he  signify  his  intention 
to  appeal  within  three  months  of  the  time  when 
he  is  informed  of  his  conviction."  (Dis.  par. 
220.) 

Third.  From  the  decision  of  a  Conference 
outside  the  United  States  upon  a  case  tried  by 
said  Conference.  "Appeals  from  an  Annual 
or  Mission  Conference  not  in  the  United  States 
may  be  heard  at  the  discretion  of  the  Bishop  in 
permanent  charge  thereof  (due  reference  being- 
had  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  all  concerned), 
either  by  a  Judicial  Conference  called  by  said 
Bishop  from  neighboring  foreign  Conferences, 
or  by  a  Judicial  Conference  called  by  him  to 
meet  at  or  near  New  York,  or  by  the  General 
Conference  through  a  special  Judicial  Com- 
mittee appointed  for  the  purpose."  (Dis.  par. 
269.) 

Appeals  Must       The  General  Conference  must  entertain  and 
be  Heard,  ^j-y  an  appeal  within  its  jurisdiction  if  per- 
fected and  presented  in  proper  form.    An  ap- 
20 


General  Pkincipees. 


peal  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Conference 
if  it  belongs  to  one  of  the  classes  mentioned, 
and  the  legal  requirements  necessary  to  its  va- 
lidity have  been  complied  with  according  to  the 
Discipline  and  ordinary  usage.  These  having 
been  observed,  the  General  Conference  is  not 
at  liberty  to  ignore,  or  to  refuse,  or  to  throw 
any  impediment  in  the  way  of,  or  to  prevent,  in 
any  manner  whatever,  the  hearing  of  any  law- 
ful appeal.  To  do  so  would  be  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution,  of  every  sense  of  justice,  and 
an  unjiistifiable  disregard  of  fundamental 
rights. 

It  is  not  to  be  deduced  from  this,  however, 
that  the  General  Conference  is  compelled  to  de- 
cide upon  every  question  of  law  referred  to  its 
decision.  There  must  be  a  concrete  case.  To 
make  decision  compulsory,  there  must  be  an  ap- 
peal. Many  illustrations  of  this  may  be  found 
in  the  Journals.  In  1876,  for  example,  the 
Bishops  submitted  to  the  General  Conference 
the  question  of  the  legality  of  their  deciding  all 
questions  of  law  arising  in  a  Judicial  Confer- 
ence, but  the  General  Conference  did  not  take 
the  subject  under  consideration.  It  was  under 
no  obligation  to  do  so.  Of  course,  the  refusal 
of  the  General  Conference  to  decide  either  way 
21 


General  Confeeence  Decisions. 


gave  tacit  consent  to  the  legality  of  the  custom, 
since  the  question  was  so  framed  that,  if  erro- 
neous, the  custom  would  be  challenged.  But  in 
the  case  of  an  appeal  from  the  ruling  of  a  pre- 
siding Bishop  in  an  Annual  or  Judicial  Confer- 
ence, the  General  Conference  would  have  been 
compelled  by  the  supreme  law  of  the  Church 
to  hear  the  case  and  deliver  its  judgment.- 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1900  a  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  that,  in  reporting  their  de- 
cisions to  the  body,  the  Committee  on  Judiciary 
should  give  the  reasons  for  their  judgment  in 
each  case.  The  resolution  was  important  and 
necessary  if  decisions  were  to  be  of  any  value  in 
ecclesiastical  jurisprudence,  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  the  doctrine  of  law,  the  legal  reason,  which 
determines  judgment  in  a  particular  case  that 
establishes  that  principle  of  law,  so  that  the 
principle  may  be  applied  hereafter  to  similar 
cases.  Lord  Kenyon  observes  that  it  is  the  prin- 
ciple "which  we  are  to  extract  from  cases,  and 
to  apply  it  in  other  cases."  But  the  reason  for 
the  decision  is  not  the  decision.  Decision  alone 
makes  precedent. 

Decisions  are  made  upon  questions  raised  in 
issue,  and  upon  no  others.  They  do  not  cover 
questions  which  are  not  presented  in  dispute 
22 


General  Principles. 


and  considered  by  the  court,  even  though  such 
questions  are  involved  in  the  case,  and  if  pre- 
sented and  argued  might  have  changed  the  ver- 
dict. A  decision  may  be  given  on  one  point, 
or  fact,  only  among  many  before  the  court,  on 
the  ground  that  the  principle  of  law  applicable 
to  that  particular  point  disposes  of  all  the  others 
in  the  case.  But  as  in  civil  law,  if  a  decision 
goes  beyond  the  facts  presented,  if  the  reasoning 
leading  up  to  the  decision  is  irrelevant,  or  if  it 
is  evident  that  the  case  was  not  clearly  appre- 
hended, then  the  decision  is  of  no  value  as  a 
precedent.  ''Just  as  a  trial  court  acts  without 
jurisdiction  if  it  assumes  to  go  beyond  the  issues 
in  the  case  and  pass  upon  matters  not  submitted 
by  the  parties  and  not  connected  with  the  con- 
troversy raised  by  the  pleading,  or  to  render  a 
judgment  or  decree  not  invited  or  asked  by  the 
litigants,  so  it  is  with  the  decision  of  an  Ap- 
pellate Court  when  the  opinion  does  not  cor- 
relate with  the  questions  actually  raised  by  the 
record."  (Black,  On  Interpretation  of  Laws, 
p.  338.) 

It  would  follow  from  this  that  the  language 
of  judicial  opinion  must  always  be  construed 
and  interpreted  with  reference  to  the  exact  ques- 
tion decided. 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Force  of  Law. 


Have  the  J ust  as  a  large  part  of  the  civil  law  has  not 
been  sanctioned  by  the  Legislature,  but  is  em- 
bodied in  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  so  Church 
law  is  found,  not  only  in  the  express  letter  of 
the  Discipline,  but  also  in  the  decisions  of 
the  Bishops  and  of  the  General  Conference 
which  have  not  been  adopted  by  that  body 
and  formulated  into  enactments.  For  ex- 
ample, in  the  case  of   .     Counsel  for 

defendant  claimed  that  there  was  no  specific 
prohibition  in  the  Discipline  forbidding  an  ex- 
pelled minister  from  exercising  his  ministerial 
functions  pending  an  appeal.  This  was  cor- 
rect; for,  while  there  were  certain  prohibitions 
in  cases  remanded  for  a  new  trial,  yet  there 
was  no  express  prohibition  of  the  exercise  of 
ministerial  functions  pending  an  appeal.  But 
the  Committee  on  Judiciary,  considering  this 
claim,  decided  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
Church  that  an  expelled  minister  should  not 
exercise  ministerial  functions  after  expulsion 
and  pending  an  appeal. 

This  subject  is  broadly  stated  by  Pomeroy 
in  his  Constitutional  Law  (third  ed.,  p.  67), 
''The  judgments  of  the  United  States  Courts," 
he  affirms,  "expounding  a  statute,  construing 
the  Constitution,  or  adding  a  new  rule  to  the 
24 


General  Pehstciples. 


vast  body  of  judicial  legislation  within  their 
especial  jurisdiction,  are  as  much  laws  of  the 
United  States  as  the  formal  acts  which  have 
been  passed  by  Congress  and  have  received  the 
assent  of  the  President."  And  all  this  is  con- 
sonant with  the  dictum  that  nothing  iS  law 
which  is  not  in  the  law. 

Decisions,  then,  have  the  force  of  law  when 
they  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  accepted 
as  precedents.  "A  solemn  decision,"  says 
Chancellor  Kent,  "upon  a  point  of  law  arising 
in  any  given  case  becomes  an  authority  in  a 
like  ease;  because  it  is  the  highest  evidence 
which  we  can  have  of  the  law  applicable  to  the 
subject;  and  the  judges  are  bound  to  follow 
that  decision  so  long  as  it  stands  unreversed, 
unless  it  can  be  sho-\vn  that  the  law  was  mis- 
understood or  misapplied  in  that  particular 
case."  (1  Kent  Comm.  ^75.)  But  not  every 
decision  is  a  precedent,  though  every  precedent 
must  be  decision.  And  among  precedents  there 
are  varying  degrees  of  value  and  importance. 

What,  then,  is  a  precedent?  A  precedent  Precedents, 
is  a  decision  which  furnishes  a  permanent  rule 
for  the  adjudication  of  similar  cases  to  the  one 
decided,  or  similar  questions  of  law.  Such  ju- 
dicial judgments  are  not  to  be  lightly  regarded. 
25 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


If  they  were  so  esteemed,  nothing  in  law  would 
be  certain,  and  justice  would  vary  with  the 
personal  opinion,  the  learning  or  the  ignorance, 
and  the  fairness  or  prejudice,  of  every  judge. 
It  is  among  the  unwritten  laws  of  Methodism 
that  one  General  Conference  can  not  bind  an- 
other; a  popular  notion  which  is  subject,  like 
many  other  notions,  to  modification;  for  the 
law  of  the  Church,  adopted  by  a  previous  Gen- 
eral Conference,  is  the  existing  law  up  to  the 
moment  of  its  repeal,  and  by  this  law  is  the 
General  Conference  bound  as  certainly  as  it  is 
by  any  law  of  its  own  making. 

But,  however,  the  judicial  decisions  of  the 
General  Conferences  in  identical  or  similar 
cases,  or  questions  of  law  can  not  be  held  as  hav- 
ing no  continuous  force,  or  as  having  no  force 
as  precedents.  If  they  are  not  binding,  and  are 
subject  to  reversal  without  legal  reason,  then 
precedent  has  no  place ;  it  does  not  exist ;  and 
can  never  be  cited  in  Methodist  law.  But  such 
is  not  the  case;  nor  ever  can  be,  since  such  an 
arbitrary  method  of  determining  litigation 
would  be  so  uncertain  in  its  judgments,  and  so 
essentially  antagonistic  to  the  most  elementary 
principles  of  justice,  that  it  could  not  be  sus- 
tained if  attempted,  nor  command  respect  for 
26 


General  Principles. 


its  decisions  if  practiced.  In  civil  law  prec- 
edents are  of  the  highest  importance,  and  they 
can  not  be  of  less  value  in  ecclesiastical  law 
which  takes  cognizance  of  moral  character,  of 
our  most  sacred  rights  and  privileges  and  ec- 
clesiastical reputation.  "It  is,"  says  Black- 
stone,  "an  established  rule  to  abide  by  former 
precedents  when  the  same  points  come  again  in 
litigation"  (1  Black.  Comm.,  69).  And  in  his 
Constitutional  Limitations,  JfQ,  Judge  Cooley  ob- 
serves, "All  judgments  are  supposed  to  apply 
existing  laws  to  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  the 
reasons  which  are  sufficient  to  influence  the 
court  to  a  particular  conclusion  in  one  case 
ought  to  be  sufficient  to  bring  it  or  any  other 
court  to  the  same  conclusion  in  all  other  cases 
where  no  modification  of  the  law  has  inter- 
vened." 

This  principle  must  also,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  apply  equally  to  the  Judicial  Decis- 
ions of  the  General  Conference;  for,  although 
the  laws  and  legal  methods  and  procedures  in 
Church  and  State  are  different,  the  rational 
ground,  the  fundamental  principle  of  rightness 
and  justice  which  is  back  of  all  law,  and  of 
which  law  is  the  expression,  and  which  gives 
moral  authority,  majesty,  and  force  to  law,  is 
27 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


the  same  in  both.  For  illustration,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1848  decided  that  a  travel- 
ing preacher  who  has  been  suspended  by  an 
Annual  Conference,  and  appeals  from  its  de- 
cision, forfeits  his  right  to  prosecute  his  appeal 
in  the  General  Conference  if  he  withdraws  from 
the  Church  prior  to  the  adjudication  of  his  case. 
In  1872,  Judicial  Conferences  were  instituted 
for  the  hearing  of  appeals  from  Annual  Con- 
ferences. Now,  the  establishment  of  this  new 
court  did  not,  could  not,  nullify  the  principle 
underlying  the  decision  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1848,  which  is,  that  he  who  legally  with- 
draws from  the  Church  is  beyond  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Church.  Of  course,  it  is  not  to  be 
inferred  from  this  that,  if  one  dies  while  his 
perfected  appeal  is  pending,  the  appeal  is  va- 
cated or  forfeited  by  his  death.  It  must  be 
heard  and  passed  upon  as  if  he  were  living ;  for 
his  cause  is  not  dead,  nor  has  he  taken  it  out 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  by  any  act 
of  his  own. 

Value  of       The  value  of  a  precedent  depends  upon  the 
icedenls.  reputation  of  the  court,  or  of  the  judge  giving 
the  opinion  upon  the  thoroughness  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  case  decided,  and  certainly  upon 
the  completeness  of  the  report  of  the  case  ad- 
28 


Geneeal  Principles. 


judged.  For  it  is  evident  that,  unless  there  is 
a  clear  understanding  of  the  issue  and  of  the 
questions  raised  during  its  trial,  and  the  reasons 
for  the  rulings  made  thereon,  it  can  not  be  de- 
termined M'hether  the  decision  was  conform- 
able to  the  law,  or  to  rules  of  reason,  or  whether 
it  is  applicable  to  any  other  case  or  not.  The 
mere  statement  that  a  case  was  decided  in  a 
certain  way  is  of  no  value  as  a  precedent.  Such 
a  decision  is  not  a  permanent  rule.  What  a 
precedent  is  worth  is  determined  by  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  record  which  evidences  the  de- 
cision and  contains  the  legal  or  logical  reasons 
for  the  judgment  rendered. 

An  examination  of  the  General  Conference 
records  will  reveal  the  fact  that  the  Reports 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee  are,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, until  comparatively  recent  years,  of  no 
value  as  precedents,  since  they  contain  no 
further  record  of  the  cases  tried  than  a  mere 
statement  of  the  findings,  and  this  without  any 
assigned  reason  for  the  conclusions  reached. 
But  there  are  a  sufficient  number  of  Reports 
which  state  the  issue  involved,  and  the  reason  for 
the  verdict  given,  to  afford  us  a  body  of  ex- 
ceedingly important  precedents,  which  should 
be  in  the  possession  of  all  who  may  be  called 
29 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 


upon  to  sit  in  Courts  of  Appeal  for  reaching 
equitable  conclusions  in  all  identical  or  similar 
cases,  and  these  decisions,  and  all  decisions  here 
cited  or  referred  to,  have  at  this  present  time 
the  force  of  law,  except  such  are  made  obsolete 
by  new  legislation,  or  have  been  repealed  by  act 
of  General  Conference. 
Presump-  Finally,  it  is  a  well-grounded  presumption 
that,  as  in  civil  law,  the  proceedings  of  the 
judicial  tribunals  of  the  Church  are  according 
to  the  law  of  the  Church.  An  Appellate  Court 
presumes,  therefore,  on  the  review  of  a  case, 
that  in  the  trial  court  all  legal  requirements 
were  observed,  and  that  the  evidence  there  ad- 
duced justified  the  decision.  The  burden  of 
proof  to  the  contrary  rests  on  the  appellant. 
This  is  not  at  all  times  an  easy  task.  He  can 
not  rebut  this  presumption  with  a  mere  decla- 
ration, nor  support  his  contention  in  general 
terms.  The  record  of  the  case  is  before  the 
court.  He  must  show  affirmatively  and  clearly 
from  this  record,  and  not  from  anything  out- 
side the  record,  the  facts  which  constitute  the 
error  complained  of.  This  must  be  done  also 
without  recourse  to  doubtful  interpretations,  or 
to  supposed  inconsistencies  in  the  record;  for 
the  court  will  presume,  what  is  certainly  a  most 
30 


General  Principles. 


rational  presumption,  that  the  decision  of  the 
lower  court  was  based  upon  the  interpretation 
of  the  facts  which  so  sustain  it,  and  not  upon 
those  that  do  not. 

All  the  facts,  then,  upon  which  the  claim  The  Record, 
of  error  is  based  must  be  in  the  record.  This 
is  the  only  evidence  of  the  error,  as  the  record, 
or  transcript,  is  the  only  evidence  that  there 
was  any  trial.  If  any  fact  essential  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  claim  is  omitted,  the  court 
Avill  presume  that  such  fact  would  have  sus- 
tained the  decision  appealed  from  if  it  had 
been  presented.  The  presumption  is,  that  the 
record  certified  to  by  a  lawful  person  as  con- 
taining all  the  proceedings  and  evidence  in  the 
case  is  correct  and  inclusive.  The  court  will 
not  presume  that  other  facts  affecting  the  judg- 
ment exists;  they  do  not  exist,  in  the  mind  of 
the  law,  if  they  conflict  with  the  facts  in  the 
record.  Even  "where  statements  in  the  record 
conflict  on  a  material  point,  the  construction 
which  upholds  the  judgment  will  be  deemed  con- 
clusive. And  where  the  omissions  of  the  record 
raise  conflicting  presumptions,  or  its  arrange- 
ment is  capable  of  different  interpretations,  or 
it  is  unintelligible  because  of  a  confused  ar- 
rangement, the  construction  maintaining  the 
31 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 

judgment  will  be  adopted."  (Ency.  Pleading 
and  Practice:  W.  Kinney.    Vol.  II,  Jf36.) 

But  if  the  record,  or  the  transcript,  which 
is  the  copy  of  it,  containing  the  history  of  the 
case  from  its  beginning  in  the  trial  court  and 
the  judgment  thereon,  does  clearly  and  affirm- 
atively set  forth  facts  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  presumption  that  the  formal  acts  of 
the  inferior  tribunal  w^ere  according  to  law, 
then  the  judgment  appealed  from  will  not  be 
sustained  by  the  Court  of  Appeal,  even  though 
it  should  be  shown  that  the  record  is  incom- 
plete, in  that  all  the  facts  are  not  presented; 
for,  obversely  to  what  has  already  been  stated 
concerning  the  presumption  that  other  facts 
if  presented  would  sustain  the  decision,  the 
court  will  not  presume  that  omitted  facts,  if 
presented,  would  correct  the  error  complained  of. 
Reversible  An  error  to  be  reversible  must  not  be  merely 
Errors.  ^£  technical  character.  It  must  involve  rea- 
son and  justice.  It  must  materially  affect  the 
judgment  rendered;  for  it  is  the  general  opin- 
ion of  the  courts  that,  unless  an  error  can  be 
shown  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  the 
appellant,  changing  or  in  any  degree  modify- 
ing the  result,  the  decision  of  the  trial  court 


32 


General  Pkinciples. 


should  not  be  reversed.  It  is  true,  however, 
that,  generally,  the  opinion  is  held  that  an  error 
does  give  rise  to  the  presumption  that  it  is  in 
itself  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  appel- 
lant, though  it  may  not  be  possible  clearly  to 
trace,  mark  out,  and  define  the  extent  or  degree 
of  its  influence  on  the  final  decision,  and  that 
the  appellee  is  bound  to  show  that  it  is  not  in- 
jurious. Several  cases  are  cited  in  the  Ency. 
of  Pleading  and  Practice  referred  to,  illus- 
trating this  principle.  We  read :  "Error  is  pre- 
sumed to  be  prejudicial.  To  justify  an  Appel- 
late Court  to  afiirm  a  judgment  when  error  has 
intervened  in  the  trial,  the  burden  is  upon  the 
party  claiming  the  benefit  of  the  judgment  to 
satisfy  the  Appellate  Court  that  the  error  was 
not  prejudicial. 

"The  Appellate  Court  will  not  support  one 
presumption  by  another;  it  will  not  presume 
that  error  was  harmless  when  the  record  does 
not  show  it  to  have  been  so,  in  order  to  support 
the  presumption  that  the  judgment  was  cor- 
rect." 

"While  it  is  true  that  error  will  never  be 
presumed,  the  converse  of  the  proposition  is 
equally  true.    Where  error  does  affirmatively 


3 


33 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

appear  it  will  not  be  presumed  that  it  was  ren- 
dered harmless  or  removed." 

"Injury  will  not  be  presumed  from  error, 
unless  the  record  shows  affirmatively  the  con- 
trary." 

"The  rule  is,  that  every  error  is  prima  facie 
an  injury  to  the  party  against  whom  it  is  made, 
and  it  rests  with  the  other  party  to  show,  not 
that  probably  no  hurt  was  done,  but  that  none 
could  have  been  done." 

But,  as  has  been  stated,  there  is  a  contrary 
rule,  which  is  that  the  appellant  must  not  only 
clearly  show  error  from  the  record,  but  also 
that  it  does  prejudice  his  case.  The  mere  fact 
that  an  error  of  any  kind  is  in  the  record  is 
no  clear  evidence  that  it  is  injurious  to  the 
appellant.  The  judgment  of  the  trial  court 
will  not  be  reversed  if  it  is  coi-rect  on  the  whole 
case,  and  if  it  can  be  shown  from  the  record 
that  the  error  could  not  have  injured  the  ap- 
pellant's cause  in  any  degree. 

Description  or  enumeration  of  errors  re- 
versible does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this 
general  view.  To  this  inquiry  special  works 
treating  on  such  questions  must  be  consulted; 
nor  does  it  come  within  the  limits  of  this  sec- 


34 


General,  Pkinciples. 

tion  to  discuss  many  other  subjects  which  be- 
long to  this  important  and  most  difficult  branch, 
or  division,  of  jurisprudence.  Our  sole  aim 
has  been  to  indicate  in  a  most  general  way  some 
primal  facts  which  must  necessarily  be  kept 
in  mind.  Other  fundamental  principles  will 
develop  themselves  in  a  study  of  the  follow- 
ing decisions. 


35 


CHAPTER  II. 


APPEALS. 

An  Appeal  is  not  admissible  if  appellant  does  not 
appear  in  person  or  by  representative. 

An  appellant  from  the    Conference 

was  expelled  from  the  ministry  and  membership 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  the  ac- 
tion of  said  Conference,  on  a  charge  of  immor- 
ality. The  Committee  resolved,  as  he  had  not 
appeared  in  person  or  by  a  representative,  that 
this  appeal  be  not  admitted.  ( General  Conf. 
Journal,  186^,  p.  268.) 

An  Appeal  is  not  admissible  if  not  made  within  the 
time  prescribed  by  the  Discipline. 

 ,  of  the    Conference,  had  made  a 

demand  of  said  Conference  for  missionary 
money  he  claimed  as  due  him.  The  demand  not 
being  granted,  he  appealed. 

The  appeal  vpas  not  admitted,  as  the  appel- 


Appeals. 


lant  did  not  appeal  for  between  two  and  three 
years  after  the  trial,  and  after  he  had  notice 
of  the  Conference  action.  (Journal,  18 6. If,  p. 
268.) 

An  Appeal  is  not  admissible  if  appellant  has  placed 
himself  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church. 

The  Committee  have  considered  the  second 

appeal  of   ,  who  appeals  from  the  action 

of  the    Conference,  whereby  he  was  ex- 

pelled from  the  ministry  of  the  Church.  The 

representatives  of  the  Conference  objected 

to  the  admission  of  the  appeal  on  the  ground — 

1.  That  ,  subsequently  to  his  trial  and 

condemnation,  joined  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  as  a  probationer,  and  thus,  at  least  tac- 
itly, confessed  the  justice  of  the  action  of  the 
Conference  in  his  case. 

2.  That  ,  since  he  was  deprived  by  this 

expulsion  of  his  ministerial  authority  and 
standing,  has  continued  to  preach,  and  has  thus 
rebelled  against  the  authority  of  the  Confer- 
ence and  the  Church. 

3.  That   ,  since  he  declared  his  inten- 
tion of  appealing  to  the  General  Conference, 
has  connected  himself  with  another  organiza- 
tion, contemplating  Church  ends  independent 

37 


General,  Conference  Decisions. 

of  and  hostile  to  the  Church  to  whose  General 
Conference  he  now  appeals. 

The  Committee,  after  hearing  the  state- 
ments and  pleadings  of  the  representatives  of 

the  parties,  resolved  that  the  appeal  of   

be  not  admitted.    (Journal,  1860,  p.  253.) 

The  Committee  took  np  the  case  of   , 

who  appeals  from  a  decision  of  the    Con- 
ference, whereby  he  was  expelled  from  the 
ministry  and  the  Church.  The  representatives 
of  the    Conference  objected  to  the  admis- 
sion of  the  appeal  on  the  ground — 

1.  That  the  appellant,  since  his  expulsion, 
has  continued  to  preach  as  if  still  in  full  pos- 
session of  ministerial  powers. 

2.  That  the  appellant,  since  his  expulsion, 
has  allied  himself  to  another  organization,  in- 
dependent of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  hostile  to  it. 

The  Committee,  after  hearing  the  state- 
ments and  pleadings  of  the  representatives  of 

the  parties,  Resolved,  That  the  appeal  of  

be  not  admitted.    (Journal,  1860,  p.  253.) 

 ,  an  appellant  of  the   Conference, 

was  deposed  from  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  by  the  action  of  said  Con- 
ference, on  the  charge  of  imrhorality.  The  Com- 
38 


Appeals. 


mittee  did  not  admit  the  appeal,  as  the  appellant 
had  withdrawTi  from  the  Church,  and  had  taken 
a  license  and  continued  to  preach  in  another 
Church.    (Journal  ISGJk,  268.) 

An  Appeal  from  an  action  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  not  from  a  decision,  is  not  admis- 
sible. 

The  Committee,  having  examined  the  case 
of   ,  of  the    Conference,  who  com- 
plains that  the  said  Conference  caused  to  be 
entered  on  its  records  a  minute  to  the  effect 
that  he  had  withdrawn  from  the  Conference  and 
the  Church  under  charges  of  immorality,  which 
minute  he  claims  is  incorrect  and  unjust.  Re- 
solved, That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Commit- 
tee, the  complaint  of    against  the  action 

of  the    Conference  is  one  over  which,  as 

a  Committee  of  Appeals,  we  have  no  jurisdic- 
tion.   (Journal,  1860,  22S.) 

An  Appeal  to  other  than  the  Court  of  Appeals  is 
not  admissible. 

The  printed  "Appeal"  of  ,  being  more 

properly  an  appeal  to  the  public  than  a  com- 
plaint of  the  ruling  of  a  bishop,  is  dismissed. 
(Journal,  1860,  1^21.) 

39 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

Want  of  documentary  evidence  bars  Appeal. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of   ,  a  re- 
spected member  of             Conference,  from  a 

decision  of  Bishop   ,  your  Committee  re- 
ports as  follows : 

When  what  was  known  as  the  Hamilton 
Amendment  to  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule 

was  before  the   Conference,  a  motion  was 

made  that  the  Conference  refuse  to  vote  on 

the  proposed  amendment.   objected  to  the 

motion  as  illegal,  and  appealed  to  Bishop  , 

presiding,  to  decide  the  legality  of  the  mo- 
tion.    Bishop    decided  that  the  motion 

was  in  order  and  legal.    From  this  decision 

 appealed  to  the  General  Conference.  The 

above  statement  of  the  case  is  gathered  from  a 

paper  signed  and  presented  by  said  .  The 

appeal  is  not  accompanied  by  a  transcript  of 
the  Journal  of  said  Conference  relating  to  the 
case.  We  therefore  recommend  that  the  sub- 
ject of  the  paper  be  dismissed.    (Journal  1S96, 

m.) 

Suppression  of  documentary  evidence  is  no  bar  to 
Appeal. 

  [a  local  elder]  was  tried  on  a  charge 

of  dishonesty  by  a  Committee  of  Investigation 
40 


Appeals. 


ill  the  Church  at  ,  and,  being  found  guilty, 

was  suspended.  Upon  trial  in  the  District 
Conference  he  was  found  guilty  and  expelled. 

On  appeal  to  the    xVnnual  Conference, 

it  would  appear  that  the  Select  ISTumber  dis- 
missed the  appeal  in  the  absence  of  the  appel- 
lant, and  without  giving  him  or  his  counsel  any 
opportunity  to  appear  before  them  and  present 
the  case.  It  is  due  to  the  Select  Number  to 
state  their  action  was  based  partly  on  the  fact 
that  the  records  of  the  trial  did  not  show  on 
their  face  any  exceptions  taken.    It  is  also 

due    to  state  that  he  claims  that  the 

record  before  the  Select  Number  was  not  cor- 
rect; that  the  preacher  in  charge,  who  was  also 
secretary  of  the  District  Conference  before 
whom  he  was  on  trial,  had  possession  of  the  rec- 
ords, and  refused  to  allow  him  to  make  a  tran- 
script thereof,  to  the  end  that  he  could  perfect 
his  appeal  to  the  Annual  Conference.  It 
would  also  appear,  from  the  best  evidence  ob- 
tainable, that  the  secretary  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference did  not  retain  possession  of  what  few 
papers  were  before  the  Select  Committee,  and 
that  the  same  can  not  now  be  fou^nd,  thereby 

rendering  it  impossible  for  to  present  his 

appeal  in  due  form  of  law.    .    .    .  Your 
41 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that    exer- 
cised due  diligence  in  trying  to  get  his  appeal 
properly  before  the  Annual  Conference,  but 
that  he  was  practically  denied  this  right  by  a 
suppression  of  the  papers  and  records  in  the 
case.  Your  Committee  would  therefore  recom- 
mend that  the  case  be  referred  back  to  the 

District  Conference,  and  that  the  said   be 

restored  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  an  ex- 
pelled member  seeking  appeal.  (Journal,  1896, 
4^5.) 

Material  deficiency  in  the  records  of  a  case  may  be 
sufficient  grounds  for  a  new  trial. 

On  motion.  Resolved,  That  we  now  take  up 

the  appeal  of  .    .    .    .    then  came 

into  Conference,  and,  after  stating  the  grounds 
of  his  appeal,  the  papers  were  called  for,  which, 
it  is  said,  can  not  be  found.  The  Journals  of 
the   Conference  were  then  read.  On  mo- 
tion of  ,  seconded  by  ,  it  was  resolved 

that,  Whereas,  the  Journals  of  the    Con- 
ference are  materially  deficient,  and  do  not  pre- 
sent the  case  in  tangible  form,  so  that  this  Con- 
ference can  act  understandingly  on  the  subject; 

therefore.  Resolved,  That  the  case  of    be 

referred  back  to  the  Conference  for  a  new 

42 


Appeals. 


investigation  and  decision.     (Journal,  1832, 

Resolved,  That  the  decision  of  the   

Conference  in  the  case  of  be  reversed  for 

the  want  of  documentary  evidence.  (Journal, 
ISJtO,  64.) 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference  as- 
sembled, That  the  decision  of  the  Confer- 
ence in  the  case  of   ,  by  which  he  was  lo- 
cated without  his  consent,  appears,  from  the 
Journals  of  said  Conference,  to  be  defective  for 
the  want  of  documentary  evidence.  Resolved, 
That  the  decision  of  the  said  Conference  in  the 

case  of  said   be,  and  the  same  hereby  is, 

reversed.   (Journal,  181^0,  85.) 

Resolved,  That  in  view  of  informalities  in  the 
manner  of  taking  and  recording  testimony  in  the 
case  of  ,  it  be  referred  back  to  the  Con- 
ference for  a  new  trial.    (Journal,  18^8,  51.) 

Exceptions.  Contrary  opinion  prevailed  in 
a  similar  case  during  that  same  Conference,  but 
the  reasons  determining  the  decision  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  are  not  given.    The  case  is  as 

follows:  Counsel  for  appellant,   ,  presented 

a  paper  of  exceptions  to  the  Journals  of  the 

 Conference,  in  the  trial  of  . 

43 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

1.  Because  the  secretary  of  the    Con- 
ference did  not  keep  regular  minutes  of  the 
trial. 

2.  Because  the  charges  and  specifications 
on  which  said   •  was  arraigned,  tried,  con- 
victed, and  expelled  from  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  by  said  Conference,  do  not  ap- 
pear on  the  record,  nor  is  there  any  reference 
to  any  minutes  kept  by  the  secretary  of  said 
Conference,  in  which  they  are  recorded. 

3.  Because  of  the  omissions  and  irregular- 
ities, the  evidence  if  there  be  any,  does  not 
come  before  the  General  Conference,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  Discipline  in  such 
cases.  .  .  .    moved  that  the  excep- 
tions taken  by  the  counsel  are  not  sufficient  to 
bar  the  appeal  or  prevent  its  being  investigated 
by  this  Conference.    .    .    .    The  Conference 

affirmed  the  decision  of  the  Conference  in 

the  case  of  . 

An  expelled  member  may  appeal  to  an  Annual  Con- 
ference on  a  complaint  of  maladministration 
against  a  pastor  or  presiding  elder. 

 ,  an  expelled  member  of  the  Church, 

presented  complaint  before  the  Annual  Con- 
ference against  ,  presiding  elder,  and  , 

44 


Appeals. 


pastor,  for  alleged  maladministration  m  his  case. 
In  the  hearing  of  the  complaint  the  following 
question,  answer,  and  exception  were  noted. 

Question.  Is  an  expelled  member  entitled 
to  be  heard  in  an  Annual  Conference  on  com- 
plaint against  the  administration  of  the  pastor 
and  of  the  presiding  elder  in  his  case  ? 

Ansiver.  Such  a  complaint  is  of  the  na- 
ture of  an  appeal  to  the  Annual  Conference 
on  the  questions  of  law  concerned  in  the  case, 
and  a  hearing  can  not  be  denied  on  the  ground 
that  the  complainant  is  not  in  the  Church.  .  .  . 

Exception.  The  following  paper  was  im- 
mediately presented  by   :    "The  Bishop 

having  ruled  that  an  expelled  layman  can  bring 
charges  in  his  own  name  against  a  member  of 
the  Conference,  I  ask  that  an  exception  to  said 
ruling  be  entered  in  the  Minutes." 

Stripped  of  all  unnecessary  verbiage,  the 
real  question  is  this:  "May  an  expelled  mem- 
ber, in  any  case,  be  heard  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ference on  a  complaint  against  the  pastor  or 
presiding  elder  for  maladministration  ? 

We  answer  that  he  may  be  so  heard.  It 
is  conceded  that,  while  the  expelled  member 
labors  xmder  the  disabilities  of  his  sentence  he 
45 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


is  denied  the  religious  privileges  of  member- 
ship ;  nevertheless  he  still  has  legal  rights  which 
can  not  be  denied  him  until  he  shall  have  ex- 
hausted all  the  remedies  which  the  law  of  the 
Church  accords  him.  We  concede  that  the  trial 
before  the  Quarterly  Conference  on  appeal  is 
the  final  trial  on  the  facts,  but  the  accused  mem- 
ber may  be  heard  further  on  questions  of  law. 

I.  He  may  prosecute  an  appeal,  in  the  na- 
ture of  proceedings  in  error  on  exceptions  to  the 
rulings  of  the  administrator  in  his  case.  This 
appeal  is  to  the  president  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference. If  serious  error  of  law  has  intervened 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  expelled  member,  the 
sentence  of  expulsion  will  be  set  aside,  and  a 
new  trial  awarded  him  in  the  proper  court 
below. 

II.  He  may  also  complain  of  the  admin- 
istrator in  his  case  to  the  next  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  if,  upon  proper  inquiry,  the  com- 
plaint be  sustained,  a  new  trial  will  be  awarded 
the  expelled  member,  and  the  administrator 
may  be  censured.  We  therefore  recommend 
to  affirm  the  rulings  of  the  Bishop.  (Journal, 
1880,  355,  356.)  The  same  rulings  and  de- 
cisions were  made  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1864,  pp.  358,  363  of  the  Journal. 

46 


Appeals. 


Plea  of  Appellant  that  he  possesses  testimony  not 
before  the  Court,  but  which,  if  heard,  would, 
in  his  opinion,  have  exculpated  him,  is  suffi- 
cient ground  for  a  new  trial. 

Resolved,  That  inasmuch  as  Brother   

alleges  that  he  has  in  his  possession  testimony 

which  was  not  before  the  Conference,  and 

which,  in  his  opinion,  would  exculpate  him  from 
one  of  the  charges  upon  which  he  was  expelled 

from  the  Conference,  said  Conference  be, 

and  hereby  is,  directed  to  grant  him  a  new  trial. 
(Journal  18 JfO,  77.) 

The  Committee  having  taken  up  the  appeal 

of  ,  of  the  Conference,  the  appellant, 

throiigh  his  counsel,  stated  that  new  and  im- 
portant evidence  has  been  obtained,  and  that  the 
case  is  yet  imdecided  in  the  Criminal  Court,  and, 
in  view  of  these  facts,  requested  that  the  case 
might  be  remanded  to  the  Conference  for  a  new 
trial.  The  case  was  so  remanded  by  the  Com- 
mittee.   (Journal,  1860, 169.) 

An  Appeal  is  not  annulled  by  the  death  of  the  ap- 
pellant if  regularly  taken  and  perfected. 

In  the  matter  of   ,  an  elder  and  mem- 
ber of  the  Annual  Conference,  your  Com- 
mittee, to  whom  was  referred  the  above  en- 
47 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

titled  subject  matter,  beg  leave  to  report,  that 
the  only  question  involved  and  submitted  by 
your  honorable  body  is  whether,  in  the  case  of 
an  expelled  member  of  an  Annual  Conference 
who  dies  pending  an  appeal,  said  appeal  survives 
to  his  heirs  or  legal  representatives,  or  is  the 
appeal  determined  and  ended  by  the  death  of 
the  appellant  ? 

The  facts  disclosed  by  the  records  submit- 
ted show  that  this  case  has  been  finally  deter- 
mined by  the  Annual  Conference  to  which  the 
appellant  belonged ;  therefore,  leaving  the  right 
of  appeal  to  a  Judicial  Conference. 

It  further  shows  that  the  appeal  was  regu- 
larly taken  and  perfected  by  the  appellant,  and 
was  at  his  death  pending.  This  appeal  could 
only  be  disposed  of  by  the  appellate  tribunal, 
which  alone  had  jurisdiction. 

The  legal  effect  of  this  appeal  was  to  sus- 
pend the  judgment  or  sentence  until  the  case 
was  heard  and  disposed  of  upon  appeal.  (Ec- 
clesiastical Law  J,  p.  Jfl6.) 

We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  the 
member's  death  did  not  affect  the  appeal,  but 
that  it  is  now  pending  and  undetermined,  and 
that  the  matter  may  be  prosecuted  by  the  de- 
ceased member's  heirs  or  legal  representatives, 
48 


Appeals. 


the  same  as  if  the  expelled  member  of  the  An- 
nual Conference  were  living.  (Journal,  188 Jf^, 
875.) 

The  right  of  appeal  is  forfeited  by  a  minister  if  he 
continues  to  exercise  ministerial  functions 
after  his  expulsion  from  the  ministry.  (Sec 
p.  37.) 

In  the  matter  of  ,  your  Committee  finds 

said    was  tried  before  a  Select  IN'umber 

of  the    Conference  upon  the  charge  of 

defamation  of  character,  and  that  he  was,  by 
said  Conference,  expelled  from  the  ministry, 
but  not  from  the  membership  of  the  Church. 
His  appeal  from  the  action  of  the  Conference 
came  before  a  Judicial   Conference,   held  at 

 .    Upon  hearing,  counsel  for  the  Church 

claim — 

1.  That  said    had  forfeited  his  right 

of  appeal  by  continuing  to  preach  after  he  had 
been  duly  expelled  from  the  ministry. 

2.  Contempt  in  the  publication  of  sundry 
defamatory  articles  named. 

Upon  motion,  duly  seconded,  the  Judicial 
Conference  declined  to  entertain  the  appeal  of 

said   ,  for  reasons  above  stated.  Counsel 

for  accused  entered  objection. 
4  49 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Afterwai'd,  to  wit,  in   ,  said    was 

tried  before  a  Committee  of    Church,  of 

which  Church  he  was  at  the  time  a  member, 
upon  the  charge  of  defamation,  and  upon  t^e 
furtlier  charge  of  insubordination;  the  specifi- 
cation under  the  charge  of  insubordination  set 

forth  that  said    claims  to  be  an  ordained 

minister,  and  to  have  authority  as  such  to 
marry  people,  baptize,  and  administer  the  sac- 
rament of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  he  did, 
at  given  times  and  places,  perform  such  acts 
as  an  ordained  minister. 

The  Committee  found  said  to  be  guilty, 

and  expelled  him  from  the  Church.  An  appeal 
was  taken  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  which 
body,  after  a  careful  examination,  affirmed  the 
judgment  of  the  Committee.  Counsel  for  the 
defendant  gave  notice  of  an  appeal.  Both  in 
the  trial  of    before  the  Annual  Confer- 

ence and  in  the  trial  before  the  Committee  of 

  Church,  counsel  for  defendant  claimed 

that  there  was  no  specific  prohibition  in  the  Dis- 
cipline forbidding  an  expelled  minister  from 
exercising  his  ministerial  functions  pending  an 
appeal;  that  the  taking  of  an  appeal  vacated 
the  judgment  pending  the  appeal.    .  . 

The  above  points  were  submitted  to  Bishop 
50 


Appeals. 


 ,  and    ...    he  decided  the  same  in 

terms  as  follows: 

1.  The  chairman  presiding  at  the  appeal  of 
  ruled  properly  in  admitting  all  the  evi- 
dence offered  at  the  trial. 

2.  A  suspended  preacher  has  no  right,  much 
less  has  an  expelled  preacher  any  right,  to  ex- 
ercise any  ministerial  functions  until  his  legal 
disabilities  have  been  removed. 

Par.  222,  Sec.  3,  of  the  Discipline  provides 
that  a  minister,  suspected  of  a  crime,  may  be 
suspended  until  the  meeting  of  his  Conference. 
Par.  270  also  provides  that  when  a  case  is  re- 
manded from  a  Judicial  Conference  for  retrial, 
the  preacher  shall  not  thereby  be  authorized 
to  resume  his  ministerial  functions.  While  the 
Church  has  been  thus  careful  in  the  cases  named, 
we  think  it  is  evident  that  it  is  the  intention 
of  the  Church  that  an  expelled  minister  should 
not  exercise  ministerial  functions  after  expul- 
sion and  pending  an  appeal. 

An  appeal  does  not  vacate  a  judgment  in 
the  sense  suggested  by  counsel  for  defendant. 

Your    Committee,    therefore,  recommends 

that  the  decision  of  Bishop  be  affirmed  as 

the  law  in  the  case.    (Journal,  1900,  456-458.) 


51 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

Right  of  Appeal  is  forfeited  if  one  withdraws  from 
the  Church  or  from  an  Annual  Conference 
while  under  charges. 

When  a  member  of  an  Annual  Conference 
gives  notice  to  the  Conference  that  he  has  with- 
drawn from  the  Church  or  Conference,  and  at 
the  same  time  there  be  charges  ready  to  be  pre- 
sented to  him,  and  he  has  knowledge  of  such 
charges  previous  to  his  notice  of  withdrawal,  and 
he  has  been  marked  upon  the  Journal  of  the 
Annual  Conference  as  withdrawTi  under  charges, 
has  such  member  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  from  such  record  of  the  An- 
nual Conference  ? 

Answer.    lie  has  not. 

When  an  expelled  member  has,  by  neglect 
or  otherwise,  forfeited  his  right  of  appeal,  may 
a  subsequent  Quarterly  Conference,  if  it  desire 
to  do  so,  grant  him  the  privilege  of  an  appeal  ? 

Answer.    No.    (Journal,  1860,  298.) 

Change  of  venue  and  failure  to  hear  appeal  does 
not  deprive  appellant  of  right  of  appeal. 

The  papers  show  that   ,  a  member 

within  the  bounds  of  Charge  was  regularly 

tried,  convicted,  and  expelled  from  the  Church. 
52 


Appeals. 


Thereupon  he  took  an  appeal,  and,  fearing  that 
justice  could  not  be  secured  in  the  Quarterly 

Conference  of    Charge,  he  requested  to 

have  it  heard  by  some  other  Conference. 

The  presiding  elder  granted  the  request,  and 
carried  the  case  to  the  Quarterly  Conference 

of  Station.    When  the  time  for  the  hear-v 

ing  arrived,  the  presiding  elder  presented  the 
appeal,  and,  after  a  statement  by  the  parties 
had  been  made,  submitted  the  question,  ''Shall 
the  appeal  be  entertained  ?" 

A  vote  was  taken,  and  the  Quarterly  Con- 
ference refused  to  entertain  the  appeal.  Thus 
ended  the  m.atter  there. 

''The  presiding  elder  now  holds  that  he  has 
no  further  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  and  that 
 's  rights  are  all  exhausted." 

We  think  not.    The  papers  show  that  the 

said    had  availed  himself  of  his  right  to 

appeal  in  a  regular  manner,  and  had  never  for- 
feited the  right;  that  the  appeal  was  before 

the    Quarterly  Conference  in  due  form; 

and,  further,  there  is  testimony  submitted  tend- 
ing to  show  that  it  was  not  heard,  partly,  if 
not  chiefly,  because  the  members  of  that  Quar- 
terly Conference  "thought  they  had  as  much 
business  of  their  own  as  they  could  attend  to, 
53 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

and  that  they  could  not  take  up  this  appeal 
without  neglecting  their  own  business  to  some 
extent." 

Upon  this  statement  of  facts  it  is  the  opinion 

of  your  Committee  that  the  said  has  never 

had  accorded  to  him  the  right  of  appeal  which 
is  guaranteed  to  every  member  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.  (Journal,  1888, 
455,  456.) 

An  appeal  based  on  informality  not  of  serious  error 
in  a  trial  court  can  not  be  sustained. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  Rev.   , 

of    Conference,  from  the  decision  of  a 

Judicial  Conference,  the  Judiciary  Committee 
report,  that  while  an  informality  occurred  upon 
the  trial  before  the  Conference  Committee,  it 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  objected  to,  and 
it  was  not  of  a  nature  to  give  rise  to  any  sus- 
picion of  injury  to  the  accused.  If  objection 
had  been  made  at  the  time,  the  irregularity 
could  have  been  avoided;  it  should,  therefore, 
be  regarded  as  waived. 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any 
serious  error  committed,  nor  any  injustice  done 
to  the  accused.  We  therefore  recommend  that 
64 


Appeals. 


the  appeal  be  not  sustained.  (Journal,  1880, 
S5k.) 

Papers  used  in  evidence  and  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications upon  which  appellant  was  tried  must 
be  specifically  referred  to  and  definitely  iden- 
tified by  Journal  of  the  Conference. 

On  proceeding  to  read  the  charges,  specifi- 
cations, and  findings  of  the  Conference  (in  the 

case  of  ),  it  was  found  that  the  document 

containing  the  charges  was  not  so  connected 
with  the  Journal  as  to  be  certainly  identified 
by  the  record;  whereupon,  on  motion,  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  was  adopted,  namely: 

Resolved,  That  in  consequence  of  informal- 
ity in  the  records  of    Conference,  in  the 

case  of  ,  the  case  be  remanded  to  the  

Conference  for  a  new  trial.  (Journal,  1856, 
77.) 

When  decision  of  trial  court  is  affirmed. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Con- 
ference that,  when  the  motions  to  afl&rm,  to  re- 
mand, and  to  reverse  have  been  successively 
put  and  lost,  the  decision  of  the  court  below 
stands  as  the  final  adjudication  of  the  case. 
(Journal,  1860,  21^8.) 

55 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

New  evidence  is  not  admissible  in  case  of  appeal. 

The  Committee  on  Questions  of  Law  have 
carefully  considered  the  interrogatories  pro- 
pounded by  the  Bishops  to  the  Conference,  and 
by  the  Conference  referred  to  said  Committee, 
and  they  present  their  answer  in  the  follow- 
ing resolutions.  ...  8.  Resolved,  That 
in  no  case  of  an  appeal  can  new  evidence  be 
admitted.     (Journal,  ISJ^S,  126,  127.) 

The  failure  of  a  Committee  to  express  penalty  is  no 
ground  for  Appeal. 

The  paper  of   ,  complaining  of  a  de- 
cision delivered  by  Bishop    in  the   

Conference,  by  which  he  claims  to  have  been 
wronged,  has  been  before  us.  We  did  not  see 
any  right  to  go  into  the  merits  of  the  case,  but 
confined  our  attention  to  the  single  question 
of  law. 

The  question,  as  stated  in  the  paper  sub- 
mitted by    differs  from  the  form  found 

in  the  Journal  of  the  Conference.  The  Jour- 
nal reads  thus : 

"When  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  is  charged  with  immorality,  and 
brought  before  a  Committee,  and  found  guilty 
of  a  crime  forbidden  by  the  Word  of  God,  and 
56 


Appeals. 


so  make  out  their  verdict,  but  fail  to  affix  the 
penalty,  can  the  preacher  in  charge  rightfully 
expel  said  member  without  first  having  a  pen- 
alty affixed  by  the  Committee  ? 

This  question  the  chair  answered  affirma- 
tively. 

 recites  two  grounds  of  complaint. 

1.  The  Committee  failed  to  declare  him 
guilty  of  a  crime  ''sufficient  to  exclude  a  per- 
son from  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  glory,"  and 
that  this  failure  vitiated  the  verdict. 

2.  The  Committee  failed  to  affix  a  penalty, 
and  therefore  the  exclusion  was  void. 

The  Bishop  presiding  holds  that  when  an 
accused  person  is  declared  by  the  Committee 
"guilty  of  a-  crime  expressly  forbidden  in  the 
Word  of  God,"  it  is  not  necessary  to  afford  a 
basis  for  the  pastor's  action  to  add  "sufficient 
to  exclude  him  from  the  kingdom  of  grace  and 
glory,"  as  the  immorality  is  explicitly  set  forth 
in  the  former  clause. 

As  to  the  second  exception,  he  holds  that 
when  a  member  is  tried  and  found  guilty,  as 
above,  "of  crime  oxpi'ossly  forbidden  by  the 
Word  of  God,"  the  Discipline  declares  the  pen- 
alty, and  adds,  "Let  the  minister  or  preacher 
who  has  charge  of  the  circuit  expel  him." 
57 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Believing  these  positions  well  taken,  the 
Committee  recommends  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  the  ruling  of  Bishop   

in  the    Annual  Conference  in  the  case  of 

 be  approved,  as  in  harmony  with  the  law 

and  Discipline  of  the  Church. 

We  also  recommend  that  the  complaint  of 
 be  dismissed.   (Journal,  1864-,  358.) 


58 


CHAPTER  III. 


BISHOPS. 

A  Bishop  is  constituted  de  facto  by  election  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  if  a  member  of  the 
General  Conference  at  the  time,  he  ceases  to  be 
a  member  on  election  to  said  office. 

Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  rec- 
ognizes it  as  a  well-settled  principle  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  con- 
cerning our  Episcopacy,  that  election  to  the 
Episcopal  office,  not  the  ceremony  of  ordina- 
tion, is  that  which  makes  one  de  facto  a  Bishop ; 
and,  therefore,  we  declare  that  no  one  who  may 
be  elected  Bishop  from  among  the  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference,  can,  after  such  election, 
exercise  the  functions  of  a  delegate;  but  that, 
thereby  and  therefrom,  he  ceases  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  General  Conference.  ( J oumal,  1880, 
209.) 

59 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

Complaints  can  not  be  made  to  the  General  Con- 
ference against  the  administration  of  a  Bishop 
unless  due  notice  has  been  given  to  him  in 
writing. 

Whereas^  It  appears  that  individuals  some- 
times forward  to  the  General  Conference  com- 
plaints against  the  administration  of  the  Bishops 
without  due  notice  being  given  them,  and 

Whereas^  We  consider  that  our  superin- 
tendents should  be  apprised  of  these  proceed- 
ings beforehand  in  writing;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
General  Conference,  it  is  improper  for  such 
complaints  to  be  made  without  due  notice  being 
furnished  to  the  Bishops  in  writing.  ( J ournal, 
1860,  231.) 

A  Bishop  may  not  submit  to  a  vote  a  question  of 
obedience  to  a  law  of  the  Church. 

The  following  question  was  submitted  to 
Bishop  in  the  Conference : 

"May  the  question  of  electing  a  brother  to 
local  deacon's  orders,  who  has  not  passed  ex- 
amination in  the  Course  of  Study  prescribed 
for  local  preachers  applying  for  deacons'  orders, 
be  submitted  to  a  vote?" 

The  answer  to  this  question  was,  ''No." 


Bishops. 


The  Committee  on  Judiciary  approve  this 
answer.  A  Bishop  may  not  submit  to  the  vote 
of  an  Annual  Conference  the  question  of  obe- 
dience to  a  law  of  the  Church.  (Journal,  ISSIf, 
376.) 

A  Bishop  may  consolidate  Churches  and  appoint  a 
pastor  to  the  united  charges. 

The  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy,  having 
carefully  considered  the  question  as  to  the  pow- 
ers of  the  Bishops  to  consolidate  two  or  more 
Churches,  declares  that  the  Bishops  have  full 
power  under  the  law  and  usage  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  to  consolidate  Churches 
and  appoint  one  pastor  for  the  united  con- 
gregation. 

In  so  doing  they  exercise  an  authority  which, 
from  the  beginning  of  our  distinct  Church  life, 
has  been  held  to  be  resident  in  the  Bishop  pre- 
siding in  an  Annual  Conference  by  virtue  of 
his  power  to  "fix  the  appointments  of  the 
preachers."    (Journal,  1900,  Jf22,  N.  J.) 

A  Bishop  has  no  legal  authority  to  judge  of  moral 
or  religious  character. 

Concerning  a  memorial  that  Bishops  be  in- 
structed to  transfer  no  minister  from  one  Con- 
61 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

ference  to  another  "whose  moral  and  religious 
-character  is  not  absolutely  without  question," 
the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  reports  that 
there  is  no  provision  constituting  a  Bishop  the 
authoritative  judge  of  moral  and  religious  char- 
acter, and,  therefore,  legislation  on  this  point 
is  inexpedient.    (Journal,  1900,  1^23,  N.  J.) 

A  Bishop  may  not  forbid  the  names  of  candidates 
who  have  passed  required  Disciplinary  exam- 
inations to  be  presented  for  admission  on  trial. 

Your  Committee  on  Episcopacy  would  re- 
spectfully recommend  that  the  characters  of 
the  General  Superintendents  and  their  admin- 
istration be  approved,  with  the  exception  that 

while  the  ruling  of  Bishop    in  declining, 

in  the    Conference,  to  allow  the  names 

of  certain  candidates  who  had  passed  the  pre- 
liminary examinations,  and  had  been  duly  pre- 
sented for  admission  on  trial,  sprang  from  a 
regard  for  the  efficiency  of  the  Church,  in  view 
of  the  law  in  the  case,  and  the  danger  of  jus- 
tifying a  precedent,  we  are  compelled  to  dis- 
approve the  said  ruling.  (Journal,  1892, 
kS9,  N.  J.) 


62 


Bishops. 


A  Sishop  may  appoint  a  preacher  to  a  Church  of 
another  Methodist  denomination. 

Whereas,  The  Bethany  Independent  Meth- 
odist Church  is  closely  allied  to  us  in  doctrine 
and  usage,  and  has  for  years  employed  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  ministers  as  pastors  to  supply 
the  pulpit,  and  has  taken  the  regular  annual 
benevolent  collections,  and  during  the  last  five 
years  paid  over  to  the  Baltimore  Methodist 
Episcopal  Conference  seven  thousand  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-five  dollars,  thereby  manifesting 
its  love  for  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
therefore. 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  recognize  the  ex- 
pressed wish  of  Bethany  Church,  and  recom- 
mend that  the  request  be  granted. 

2.  That  the  General  Superintendents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  making  the 
appointments,  be  granted  permission  to  appoint 
pastors  from  our  Church  to  any  Methodist 
Church  not  under  our  care,  but  having  the 
same  doctrines  and  usages,  and  operating  with 
us  in  our  benevolent  work,  who  may  ask  of  our 
Church  said  appointment.  (Journal,  1892, 
UO,  N.  J.) 


63 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 

The  President  of  a  Conference  may  use  his  own 
judgment  in  not  submitting  to  a  vote  ques- 
tions not  pertaining  to  the  business  of  a  Con- 
ference. 

The  President  of  an  Annual  or  a  Quarterly- 
meeting  Conference  has  the  right  to  decline 
putting  the  question  on  a  motion,  resolution,  or 
report,  when,  in  his  judgment,  such  motion, 
resolution,  or  report  does  not  relate  to  the  proper 
business  of  a  Conference;  provided,  that  in  all 
such  cases  the  President,  on  being  required  by 
the  Conference  to  do  so,  shall  have  inserted  in 
the  Journals  of  the  Conference  his  refusal  to 
put  the  question  on  such  motion,  resolution,  or 
report,  with  his  reason  for  so  refusing;  and 
provided,  that  when  an  Annual  Conference  shall 
differ  from  the  President  on  a  question  of  law, 
they  shall  have  a  right  to  record  their  dissent 
on  the  Journals,  provided  there  shall  be  no  dis- 
cussion on  the  subject.    (Journal,  1860,  121.) 

The  decision  on  a  question  of  law  by  a  Bishop  pre- 
siding in  an  Annual  Conference  can  not  be  set 
aside  except  by  a  General  Conference. 

When  a  question  of  law  has  been  decided 
by  a  Bishop  in  an  Annual  Conference,  that  de- 
cision can  not  be  reversed  or  set  aside  except  by 
64 


Bishops. 


the  action  of  the  ensuing  General  Conference, 
to  which  body  an  appeal  may  be  taken  by  the 
Annual  Conference  or  by  any  member  thereof. 
(Journal  1860,  297.) 

On  the  death  of  a  Presiding  Elder  a  Bishop  in 
interim  may  divide  a  District  and  appoint 
thereto  Presiding  OfScers. 

Is  it  in  accordance  with  the  general  usage 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  the 
spirit  of  her  economy,  and  with  the  law  of  the 
same  given  in  the  Discipline,  Part  1,  Chap. 
Ill,  Sec.  1,  in  answer  to  Question  3,  and  in 
Chap.  IV,  Sec.  1,  that  on  the  decease  of  a  pre- 
siding elder  in  the  interim  of  an  Annual  Con- 
ference, a  Bishop  may  divide  the  district  into 
two  or  more  sub-districts,  and  appoint  thereto 
as  many  presiding  officers,  having  power  to  per- 
form all  the  duties  of  presiding  elders  in  Quar- 
terly Conference,  and  to  represent  in  the  en- 
suing Annual  Conference  the  preachers  in 
charge  of  the  circuits  or  stations  to  which  they 
were  personally  appointed  ? 

We  find  among  the  duties  of  the  Bishops 
the  following:  To  form  the  districts  according 
to  his  judgment.  (Discipline,  Answer  2,  page 
92.)  The  same  authority  (see  Discipline,  page 
5  65 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 

98)  declares  the  presiding  elders  are  to  be 
chosen  by  the  Bishop,  thus  referring  the  whole 
power  in  determining  the  size  of  the  district, 
the  number  of  its  charges,  and  the  selection  of 
the  presiding  elders  to  the  Bishop.  We,  there- 
fore, answer  the  question  thus : 

He  has  the  legal  right  to  arrange  the  dis- 
trict according  to  his  own  judgment.  (Journal, 
186U,  UO,  141.) 

A  Bishop  may  strike  an  insubordinate  Church  from 
the  list  of  Conference  appointments. 

Your  Committee,  having  examined  the  me- 
morial of   Chapel,    Conference,  com- 
plaining of  the  administration  of  the  Bishops 
in  their  case,  and  also  the  official  correspond- 
ence which  it  occasioned, — they  find  the  facts 
to  be,  that  in  1861  the  minister  appointed 

as  pastor  of    Chapel  was  rejected  by  the 

officiary,  not  because  of  anything  personally  ob- 
jectionable in  the  appointee,  but  because  the 
officiary  aforesaid  had  not  been  consulted  in 
the  matter  of  the  appointment,  they  desiring 
to  retain  the  services  of  a  man  who  had  already 
been  regularly  appointed  to  them  the  preceding 
two  years ;  further,  that  they  not  only  voted  to 
reject  the  pastor  appointed,  but  advertised  in 
66 


Bishops. 


the  daily  newspapers  that    Chapel  was 

without  a  pastor,  and  locked  the  doors  o£  the 
church  on  Sabbath  morning,  thus  excluding  the 
pastor  and  presiding  elder,  claiming  for  them- 
selves the  right  so  to  do  because  of  the  pecul- 
iarity of  their  deed.  Under  these  circum- 
stances,  Bishop    released  the  minister 

appointed  to    Chapel,  and  notified  the 

Ofiicial  Board  that  he  could  not  consent  to 
the  appointment  of  another  preacher  to  the 
charge  except  upon  the  following  conditions; 
namely : 

''1.  That  the  official  and  private  members 
should  jointly  agree  that  hereafter  they  would 
receive  and  support  such  ministers  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  her  regular  appoint- 
ing authority  should  from  time  to  time  appoint 
to  the  pastorate  of  Chapel. 

"2.  That  they  should  receive  such  presiding 
elders  as  should  from  time  to  time  be  appointed 

to  the  district,  including  Chapel,  and  pay 

their  proper  proportion  of  his  claim,  according 
to  Discipline. 

^'2.   That   the   trustees   of    Chapel 

should  guarantee  to  such  regular  appointees, 
whether  as  pastors  or  presiding  elders,  the  free 
use  of  the  pulpit." 

67 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

He  further  stated  to  them  as  follows: 
  Chapel  is  in  a  state  of  insubordi- 
nation, and  if  it  remains  so  till  next  Conference 
it  will  be  left  off  the  list  of  Conference  charges, 
and  cease  to  appear  in  our  official  Minutes." 

In  accordance  with  this.  Bishop    gave 

special  instruction  to  the  presiding  elder  to  give 
certificates  of  membership  to  all  loyal  members 
desiring  to  remove  their  relation  to  some  other 
Church. 

At  the  session  of  the    Conference 

in  1862,  these  terms,  not  having  been  complied 
with,    Chapel  was  stricken  by  the  pre- 

siding Bishop  from  the  "list  of  Conference 
charges." 

In  all  this,  so  far  from  seeing  anything 
to  censure,  the  Committee  believe  the  admin- 
istration to  have  been  wise  and  just,  and  that 

Bishop  is  to  be  commended  for  the  firmness 

with  which  he  maintained  the  Discipline  and 
order  of  the  Church.  (Journal,  1861f,  357,  S58.) 

Bishops  may  meet  in  council  to  arrange  plan  for 
Episcopal  visitation. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  highly  expedient  for  the 
General  Superintendents,  at  every  session  of  the 


68 


Bishops. 


General  Conference,  and  as  far  as  to  them  may 
appear  practicable  in  the  intervals  of  the  ses- 
sions annually,  to  meet  in  council  to  form  their 
plan  of  traveling  through  their  charge,  whether 
in  a  circuit  after  each  other  or  by  dividing 
the  connection  into  several  Episcopal  depart- 
ments, with  one  Bishop  or  more  in  each  de- 
partment, as  to  them  may  appear  proper  and 
most  conducive  to  the  general  good,  and  the 
better  to  enable  them  fully  to  perform  the  great 
work  of  their  administration  in  the  General 
Superintendency,  and  to  exchange  and  unite 
their  views  upon  all  affairs  connected  with  the 
general  interests  of  the  Church.  Considering 
the  great  extent  of  the  work  throughout  this 
vast  continent,  committed  to  the  oversight  of 
their  Episcopacy,  the  Committee  deem  it  inex- 
pedient to  require  each  of  our  Bishops  to  travel 
throughout  the  whole  of  their  extensive  charges 
during  the  recess  of  the  General  Conference, 
and  therefore  recommend  to  the  Episcopacy  to 
make  such  an  apportionment  of  the  work  among 
themselves  as  shall  best  suit,  in  their  judgment, 
most  effectually  to  promote  the  general  good. 
(Journal  182Jk,  301;  and  Journal,  1832, 
m>  N.  J.) 


69 


General  Conference  Decisions 

The  President  of  a  Conference  has  the  right  to  ad- 
journ said  Conference  when,  in  his  judgment, 
the  business  is  transacted. 

The  President  of  an  Annual  or  a  Quarterly- 
meeting  Conference  has  the  right  to  adjourn 
the  Confei'ence  over  which  he  presides  when, 
in  his  judgment,  all  the  business  prescribed 
by  the  Discipline  to  such  Conference  shall  have 
been  transacted ;  provided,  that  if  an  exception 
be  taken  by  the  Conference  to  his  so  adjourning 
it,  the  exception  shall  be  entered  upon  the  Jour- 
nals of  such  Conference.    (Journal,  18^0, 121.) 

A  Missionary  Bishop  may  ordain  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try outside  of  his  jurisdiction  if  no  General 
Superintendent  is  accessible  and  the  Disci- 
plinary requirements  have  been  observed. 

Concerning  the  memorial  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Episcopacy  to  ascertain  "whether 
any  Missionary  Bishop  has  ordained  any  per- 
son to  the  ministry  outside  his  missionary 
field ;  and,  if  so,  by  what  authority  ?"  Also, 
"whether  any  Missionary  Bishop  of  our  Church 
has  ordained  any  deaconess  or  deaconesses; 
and,  if  so,  by  what  authority?"  we  find  that 


70 


Bishops. 


Bishop    ordained  in  England  a  brother, 

recommended  in  Africa  by  the  African  Con- 
ference, and  intended  for  the  work  in  Africa, 
and,  after  investigating  the  facts,  we  report 
that  it  shall  not  be  deemed  a  breach  of  order 
for  a  Missionary  Bishop,  while  traveling  in  a 
foreign  country,  though  outside  of  his  mission- 
ary field,  to  ordain  a  minister  belonging  to  that 
field,  there  being  no  General  Superintendent 
accessible,  and  the  Disciplinary  preliminaries 
to  ordination  having  been  observed.  (Journal, 
1892,  UO,  U1-) 

In  the  deliberations  of  the  Book  Committee,  Bish- 
ops are  present  only  in  order  to  concur  or  not, 
in  the  action  of  said  Committee  filling  vacan- 
cies. 

Tour  Committee  has  considered  the  matter 
embraced  in  the  following  preamble  and  reso- 
lution, passed  by  the  General  Conference,  to  wit : 

"Whereas^  The  right  of  the  Bishops  to  take 
part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Book  Commit- 
tee, pending  the  election  of  an  editor  or  agent, 
has  been  questioned;  and 

"Whekeas,  Several  members  of  the  Book 
Committee  of  the  last  quadrennium  have  filed 


71 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

a  petition  (see  page  15  of  the  report  of  the 
Book  Committee),  asking  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  define  the  duties  and  the  rights  of  our 
General  Superintendents  in  the  election  of  an 
editor  or  agent  by  the  Book  Committee ; 
therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  this  question  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary,  with  instruc- 
tions to  consider  it  and  report  their  conclusions 
to  this  body." 

And  it  respectfully  reports:  While  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Discipline  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion involved  (paragraph  416)  is  obscure,  and 
its  meaning  is  not  easily  determined,  the  Com- 
mittee is  of  the  opinion  that  when  vacancies 
are  to  be  filled  the  General  Superintendents  are 
not  present  as  part  of  a  joint  committee,  nor 
for  the  purpose  of  joint  action  in  any  particu- 
lar with  the  Book  Committee,  but  they  are 
present  as  a  separate  body  to  hear  the  action 
of  the  Book  Committee,  and  their  only  function 
is  to  concur  or  refuse  to  concur  in  that  action. 
They  may  take  part  in  any  discussion  had  by 
the  Book  Committee  only  by  virtue  of  its  re- 
quest or  permission.  ( Journal,  1892,  ^81, 1^88.) 


72 


Bishops. 


Legal  decisions  of  Bishops  outside  Annual  Confer- 
ences can  not  be  pleaded  as  having  the  force 
of  law. 

Whebeas,  Under  the  rule  which  says,  ''A 
Bishop  shall  decide  all  questions  of  law  in  an 
Annual  Conference  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the 
General  Conference,"  a  custom  has  gro^ra  up 
of  evoking  Episcopal  decisions  touching  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Discipline  outside  of  the 
Annual  Conferences;  and 

Whereas,  These  decisions  and  opinions  are 
sometimes  in  conflict  with  each  other,  spring- 
ing up  from  questions  growing  out  of  peculiar 
and  ever-varying  circumstances ;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  the  judgment  of  this  Con- 
ference that  the  use  made  of  the  rule  aforesaid 
was  not  intended  by  the  General  Conference 
which  established  it,  that  General  Conference 
intending  it  for  the  administration  of  the  Con- 
ferences, and  not  of  the  individual  pastors; 
therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  every  administrator  of 
the  Discipline  is  responsible  to  the  proper  au- 
thorities for  his  administration  of  the  rules  of 
the  Church,  and  may  not  plead  Episcopal  de- 
cisions as  law. 

73 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

2.  Resolved,  That  while  the  counsels  of  our 
Superintendents  are  to  be  highly  respected,  and 
to  be  considered  of  great  value  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  Discipline,  their  decisions  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  having  the  force  of  law  out- 
side of  the  Annual  Conferences.  (Journal, 
1860,  U28.) 

In  answer  to  the  memorial  of   ,  in 

reference  to  the  usage  in  Annual  Conference 
of  asking  for  Episcopal  decisions  when  no  case 
requiring  them  is  before  the  body,  the  Com- 
mittee present  the  following  resolution  for  the 
adoption  of  the  General  Conference : 

Resolved,  That  we  deem  it  inexpedient  for 
a  Bishop,  pre'siding  at  an  Annual  Conference, 
to  render  formal  decisions  of  questions  of  law 
presented  in  fictitious  cases,  and  where  the  sub- 
ject is  not  involved  in  the  proceeding  pending, 
nor  should  any  such  decisions  be  entered  upon 
the  Conference  Journals.  ( J ournal,  IS 68,  Jf95.) 


74 


CHAPTER  IV. 


CONFEREI^CES. 

The  General  Conference  has  no  power  to  divide  the 
Church. 

There  exists  no  power  in  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
pass  any  act  which,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
effectuates,  authorizes,  or  sanctions  a  division  of 
said  Church.    (Journal,  18^8,  73.) 

The  General  Conference  may  not  dispose  of,  sell, 
or  bargain  away  Church  property. 

The  following  question,  submitted  by  , 

was  referred  to  the  Committee : 

"Has  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  either  directly  or 
through  a  commission  appointed  by  said  Con- 
ference, the  legal  right  to  deed,  sell,  give,  or  in 
any  way  dispose  of,  or  transfer  a  church  house 
or  parsonage,  held  according  to  the  law  of  the 
75 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 


State  and  the  Discipline  of  said  Church  by 
trustees  properly  appointed,  to  or  for  the  use 
of  members  and  ministers  of  another  Church 
or  denomination,  or  for  any  other  use  or  pur- 
pose, without  the  consent  of  the  trustees  and 
other  parties  interested  in  it,  under  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?" 
This  question  the  Committee  answer  in  the 
negative.    (Journal,  1880,  380.) 

The  General  Conference  may  not  deprive  members 
of  the  Church  of  their  rights  except  by  due 
process  of  law. 

It  is  the  right  of  every  member  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  to  remain  in  said 
Church,  unless  guilty  of  the  violation  of  its 
rules,  and  there  exists  no  power  in  the  min- 
istry, either  individually  or  collectively,  to  de- 
prive any  member  of  said  right.  (Journal, 
m8,  78.) 

An  Annual  Conference  has  no  jurisdiction  over  a 
Local  Elder. 

A  memorial  presented  by  ,  of  the  

Conference,  submits  the  record  of  the  action 
76 


CONFEKENCES. 


of  that  Conference,  by  Avhich  it  deprived  , 

a  local  elder,  of  his  credentials,  and  asks  a  de- 
cision as  to  the  legality  of  said  action.  The  rec- 
ord shows  that  a  member  of  the  Conference 

called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  said   , 

who  lived  within  the  bounds  of  that  Conference, 
did  not  then  have  membership  in  any  Church, 
and  that  he  had  not  had  such  membership  for 
twenty  years  past,  and  moved  that  the  Confer- 
ence demand  the  return  of  his  parchments. 
The  motion  was  passed,  and  the  parchments  were 
demanded  and  returned.  Was  this  action  legal  ? 
.  .  .  As  local  preachers  of  all  grades  are 
thus  made  amenable  to  the  District  or  Quar- 
terly Conference,  the  Annual  Conference  had 
no  jurisdiction,  and,  therefore,  the  action  of 

  Conference  in  the  above  case  was  not 

legal.    (Journal  1888,  Jf55.) 

An  Annual  Conference  may  not  strike  a  member's 
name  from  the  Conference-roll  without  author- 
ity of  law. 

Your  Committee  has  carefully  examined 
the  records  and  documents  in  the  matter  of  the 

appeal  of  the  Rev.   ,  of    Conference, 

from  the  action  of  said  Conference  in  striking 
77 


Genkkal,  Confekence  Decisions. 

his  name  from  the  Conference-roll,  and  reports 
as  follows: 

The  records  do  not  disclose  any  withdrawal 

from  said  Conference  by  said  ,  and  we  are 

of  the  opinion  that  the  action  of  said  Confer- 
ence in  striking  his  name  from  the  Conference- 
roll  was  made  under  a  misapprehension  of  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  without  authority  of  law. 

Your  Committee,  therefore,  recommends 
that  his  name  be  restored  to  the  rolls  of  said 
Conference,  without  prejudice,  so  that  he  may  be 
required  to  answer  any  charge  that  may  be 
brought  against  him  arising  out  of  the  matter 
in  question.    ( Journal,  1896,  423.) 

If  an  Annual  Conference  divides,  each  part  is  an 
Annual  Conference. 

Your  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
following, — ^^Resolved,  That  the  Judiciary 
Committee  be  requested  to  consider  the  follow- 
ing question,  and  report  on  Monday  next,  'If 
so  much  of  an  Annual  Conference  be  set  apart 
that  the  remaining  territory  contains  a  less  num- 
ber of  ministers  than  is  required  to  constitute 
an  Annual  Conference,  should  this  remaining 
territory  be  constituted  a  Mission,  or  does  it 
continue  to  be  an  Annual  Conference  V  " — 
78 


CONFEKENCES. 


respectfully  report  that,  in  our  opinion,  such 
territory  continues  to  be  an  Annual  Conference. 
(Journal,  1896,  425-6.) 

When  an  Annual  Conference  is  divided,  there 
should  be  an  equitable  division  of  the  property 
belonging  to  said  Conference. 

Resolved,  1.  By  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference  as- 
sembled, That  it  is  recommended  to  every  An- 
nual Conference  contemplating  a  division,  to 
provide,  where  it  can  be  done  legally,  for  an 
equitable  division  of  the  property  belonging  to 
said  Conference,  so  as  to  give  each  of  those 
made  out  of  it,  its  proportion,  according  to  the 
number  of  its  members,  as  nearly  as  u\ay  be. 

Resolved,  2.  That  when  a  Conference  is  di- 
vided without  having  made  such  previous  ar- 
rangement for  a  division  of  property,  such 
arrangement  shall  be  made  as  soon  thereafter 
as  may  be ;  in  which  case  the  property  should  be 
divided  according  to  the  number  of  members 
composing  each;  and  if  the  principal  of  any 
property  or  legacies  belonging  to  said  Confer- 
ence may  not  be  divided,  the  proceeds  thereof 
should  be  annually  divided  between  them  in  the 
same  ratio.    (Journal,  1836,  Ji.57-8.) 

79 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

The  Conference  claimant  allowance  of  a  superan- 
nuated preacher  must  be  determined  by  the 
Conference  of  which  he  is  a  member. 

In   the   case   of   ,   a  superannuated 

preacher  of  the    Conference,  made  such 

without  his  consent,  and  who  complains  that 
no  allowance  has  been  made  for  him,  it  is  the 
opinion  of  your  Committee  that  the  claim  of  a 
superannuated  preacher  has  very  properly  been 
committed  to  the  judgment  of  his  Conference, 
and  that  it  is  not  proper  for  us  to  act  in  the 
case.  (Com.  on  Itinerancy  Report:  Journal, 
186Jt,  366-1.) 

An  Annual  Conference  has  the  right,  on  motion, 
and  without  form  of  trial,  to  locate  a  member 
without  his  consent. 

The  Committee  on  Judiciary  has  carefully 
considered  the  memorial  of  ,  and  the  argu- 
ments submitted  in  connection  therewith.  It 

appears  that   ,  in  pursuance  of  paragraph 

183  of  the  Discipline,  was  requested  by  the 

  Conference,  at  its  session  in  1881,  to 

ask  a  location;  and  he  having  failed  to  com- 
ply with  this  request,  a  resolution  was  in- 
troduced at  the  session  of  1882  to  locate  him 
without  his  consent.  It  was  objected  that  the 
80 


Conferences 


Conference  could  not  legally  take  such  action, 
because  the  fact,  required  in  paragraph  183  of 
the  Discipline,  that  "he  is  so  unacceptable,  in- 
efficient, or  secular,  as  to  be  no  longer  effective" 
in  his  work,  "has  not  been  ascertained  by  this 
Conference,  by  any  proper  or  judicial  investi- 
gation, and  therefore  the  proceedings  now  pro- 
posed are  not  in  order." 

^\^lereupon  Bishop    ruled:  "That  the 

case  has  a  right  to  proceed  now  without  any 
form  of  trial,  the  Conference  having,  at  its  last 
session,  requested  him  to  locate  on  account  of 
secularity,  so  answering  the  requirements  of 
paragraph  183  of  the  Discipline." 

We  find  that  the  rulings  of  the  Bishop  and 
the  action  of  the    Conference  in  the  loca- 
tion of  ,  without  his  consent,  are  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  recommend 
that  they  be  confirmed.   (Journal,  188U,  378-9.) 

An  Annual  Conference  has  the  right  to  determine 
the  relation  which  a  member  may  sustain  to 
it,  with  or  without  his  consent. 

At  the  session  of  the    Conference, 

held  in  1887,    was  requested  to  take  a 

supernumerary  relation,  which  he  refused  to 
do.    Thereupon  a  motion  was  made  to  place 
6  81 


General  Coneekence  Decisions. 


him  in  this  relation,  and  the  motion  was  enter- 
tained by  Bishop   .    The  said    then 

and  there  claimed  that  the  motion  was  not  in 
order,  as  the  Discipline,  paragraph  186,  defines 
a  supernumerary  preacher  to  be  "one  who,  be- 
cause of  impaired  health,  is  temporarily  unable 
to  perform  effective  Avork,"  and  that  his  health 
was  not  impaired,  and  that  his  work  was  effect- 
ive. 

The  Bishop  adhered  to  his  decision,  and  the 

said    took  an  appeal  from  this  decision, 

which  was  noted  in  the  Journal.  The  appeal  is 
against  the  decision  of  the  Bishop  in  entertain- 
ing the  above-named  motion,  and  is  based  on  the 
claim  that  the  said  appellant  was  not  in  im- 
paired health,  and  that  he  was  able  to  do  effective 
work. 

In  our  opinion  the  opinion  is  not  well 
founded.  The  Annual  Conference  has  the  un- 
doubted right  to  place  a  member  in  a  super- 
numerary relation  without  his  consent  and 
against  his  protest.  The  Conference  is  the  sole 
judge  as  to  his  health  touching  the  matter,  and 
of  his  ability  to  do  effective  work.  It  was  the 
right  of  the  Conference,  therefore,  to  pass  such 
a  motion  as  is  here  complained  of,  and  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Bishop  to  entertain  it  and  declare 
82 


Conferences. 


the  result.  For  these  reasons  we  recommend 
that  the  appeal  be  dismissed.    (Journal,  1S88, 

m-5.) 

An  informal  withdrawal  from  membership  in  an 
Annual  Conference  does  not  place  the  member 
withdrawing  beyond  jurisdiction  of  the  Con- 
ference. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  ,  of  the 

  Conference,  the  Judiciary  Committee  re- 
spectfully report : 

That  it  appears  that,  at  a  session  of  said 
Conference,  the  following  question  of  law  was 
propounded : 

''Has  a  member  of  a  Conference  a  right  to 
withdraw  therefrom,  there  being  no  official 
charges  presented  against  him,  in  the  interim  of 
the  sessions  of  the  Conference ;  and,  if  he  with- 
draw, does  he  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  Con- 
ference from  the  time  of  his  withdrawal  ?" 

The  presiding  Bishop  gave  the  following 
answers :' 

"1.  It  is  the  right  of  any  member  of  a  Con- 
ference to  give  notice  of  withdrawal  from  the 
Conference,  through  the  proper  officer,  when 
there  are  no  charges  presented  against  him. 
83 


General  CoNFEREisrcE  Decisions, 

"2.  But  the  withdrawal  is  not  complete  until 
the  Conference  with  which  he  was  connected 
takes  action  upon  it." 

From  this  decision  the  present  appeal  was 
taken.  Your  Committee  report  that,  in  their 
opinion,  the  answers  given  above  were  correct, 
and  that  the  appeal  should  not  be  sustained. 
(Journal,  1880,  380.) 

A  member  of  an  Annual  Conference  may  not  ap- 
peal from  the  record  of  his  withdrawal  under 
charges  from  membership  in  the  Conference, 
such  withdrawal  being  recognized  by  the  Con- 
ference and  entered  on  its  journal. 

"When  a  member  of  an  Annual  Conference 
gives  notice  to  the  Conference  that  he  has  with- 
drawn from  the  Church  or  Conference,  and  at 
the  same  time  there  be  charges  ready  to  be  pre- 
sented against  him,  and  he  has  knowledge  of 
such  charges  previous  to  his  notice  of  with- 
drawal, and  he  has  been  marked  upon  the  Jour- 
nal of  the  Annual  Conference  as  Avithdrawn 
under  charges,  has  such  member  the  right  to 
appeal  to  the  General  Conference  from  such 
record  of  the  Annual  Conference  ?" 

Answer.  He  has  not.  (Journal,  1860,  298.) 
84 


Conferences. 


When  Annual  Conferences  are  divided,  missionary 
appropriations  must  be  divided. 

The  following  resolution  was  moved  by  , 

and  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  where  Conferences  have 
been  divided,  the  Bishops  are  hereby  instructed 
to  make  a  distribution  of  the  missionary  money 
appropriated  to  the  several  Conferences  affected 
by  such  division.    (Journal,  1860,  SOS.) 

A  vote  of  two-thirds  of  an  Annual  Conference  is 
necessary  to  disallow  claims  of  superannuated 
or  supernumerary  preachers. 

The  ruling  of  Bishop  in  the  Con- 
ference, in  relation  to  disallowing  the  claim  of 
superannuated  and  supernumerary  preachers, 
referred  to  the  Committee,  has  been  duly  con- 
sidered. 

The  following  extract  from  the  Journal  of 
the  Conference  presents  the  whole  case : 

The  stewards,  as  the  Committee  on  Claims, 
reported,  and  when  their  report  was  before  the 

Conference,  Bishop  ruled  that  the  rule  in 

the  Discipline  under  the  general  head  of  Annual 
Supplies,  part  iii,  chapter  iii,  section  v,  should 
be  construed  so  as  to  allow  the  claims  of  all  the 
85 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

superannuated  and  supernumerary  preachers, 
and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  preach- 
ers, and  that  to  disallow  their  claims,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  requires  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Conference. 

The  Committee  recommend  to  the  General 
Conference  that  the  ruling  in  this  case  be  ap- 
proved.   (J'ournal,  1860,  Jf29.) 

The  recommendation  by  a  Quarterly  Conference 
for  a  renewal  of  license  to  exhort  must  be 
granted. 

Question.  In  case  a  Quarterly  Conference 
recommend  the  renewal  of  the  license  of  an  ex- 
horter,  is  the  presiding  elder  under  obligation 
to  renew  the  license  ? 

Answer.  He  is.    (Jo^irnal,  1860,  228-9.) 

The  jurisdiction  of  a  Quarterly  Conference  over  a 
preacher  on  trial  in  an  Annual  Conference  does 
not  extend  beyond  authority  to  try  him  if  ac- 
cused of  crime. 

The  Committee  on  Episcopacy  respectfully 
present  the  following  report  to  the  General  Con- 
ference : 

After  considering  the  paper  referred  to  the 
Committee,  appealing  from  the  decision  of  the 
86 


CoNFEREISrCES. 


Bishop  who  presided  at  the  last  session  of  the 

 Conference,  touching  the  jurisdiction  of  a 

Quarterly  Conference  over  a  preacher  on  trial, 
the  following  resolution  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  ruling  of 

Bishop   in  the  case  before  us,  which  is  to 

the  effect  that  the  only  jurisdiction  which  a 
Quarterly  Conference  has  over  a  preacher  on 
trial  for  membership  in  an  Annual  Conference 
is  to  try  him  when  accused  of  crime.  ( Journal, 
1872,  258.) 

In  relation  to  the  question  in  paragraph  99, 
section  1,  page  71,  of  the  Discipline,  "Are  there 
any  complaints  ?"  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Judiciary  for  an  interpretation,  the  Committee 
present  the  following  report : 

The  question  refers  only  to  those  persons  who 
are  amenable  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  and 
to  those  offenses  of  which  said  Conference  has 
jurisdiction.  It  does  not  refer  to  members  of 
Annual  Conferences  who  are  amenable  else- 
where. The  Quarterly  Conference  has  juris- 
diction over  preachers  on  trial  in  an  Annual 
Conference  who  may  be  accused  of  crime,  and 
over  the  official  and  moral  conduct  of  local 
preachers,  and  may  hear  complaints  against 
them  when  presented  in  due  form.  With  these 
87 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


exceptions,  the  question  refers  only  to  official 
misconduct  of  members  of  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence. For  their  moral  conduct  they  are  account- 
able to  the  same  tribunals  as  are  private  mem- 
bers of  the  Church.    (Journal,  188^,  376.) 

A  Quarterly  Conference  may  remove  Trustees  at 
will,  subject  to  State  and  Disciplinary  law. 

The  Bishops  are  frequently  called  upon  to 
explain  paragraph  328  of  the  Discipline,  so  as 
to  tell  when  and  by  what  method  trustees  may 
or  may  not  be  ''ejected"  from  office,  and  they 
desire  the  General  Conference  to  declare  whether 
the  Quarterly  Conference  has  power  to  discon- 
tinue the  service  of  trustees  at  will. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  it  is  in  the 
power  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  to  remove 
trustees  at  any  time  for  cause  where  statutes 
of  the  State  do  not  prevent;  subject,  however, 
to  the  provisions  of  paragraph  328  of  the  Disci- 
pline.   (Journal,  1892,  490.) 


88 


CHAPTER  V. 


ELECTIOl^  S. 

laymen  are  members  of  the  Church  who  are  not 
members  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

A  RESOLUTION  Submitted  to  the  General  Con- 
ference by   ,  of  the    Conference,  and 

referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church,  was  duly  considered,  and  the  following 
resolution  was  recommended  for  adoption  by  the 
General  Conference : 

Resolved,  That,  in  all  matters  connected  with 
the  election  of  lay  delegates,  the  word  "laymen" 
must  be  understood  to  include  all  the  members 
of  the  Church  who  are  not  members  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences.    (Journal,  1812,  Ji-Jj-S,  N.  J.) 

Eligibility  of  a  located  minister  to  election  as  a  lay 
delegate  to  the  General  Conference  is  condi- 
tioned by  the  time  he  has  been  a  member  of 
the  Church,  not  by  the  time  he  has  been  a  lay 
member. 

Question.  Has  a  Methodist  preacher,  who 
has  not  been  located  for  five  full  years,  such 
membership  as  a  layman  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


copal  Cbnrcli  as  the  Discipline  requires  in  order 
to  eligibility  to  election  as  lay  delegate  to  the 
General  Conference? 

Answe7\  Yes ;  provided  he  has  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  for  five  consecutive  years. 
The  Discipline  does  not  require  that  he  should 
have  been  a  lay  member  for  five  consecutive 
years  to  make  him  eligible  to  such  election. 
(Journal,  1888,  ^53.) 

An  alternate  delegate  to  a  seated  delegate  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  entitled  to  the  seat  vacated 
by  another  member  of  the  same  delegation. 

 was  elected  by  the  Lay  Electoral  Con- 
ference of  the   Conference  as  an  alternate 

for   ,  and    was  elected  alternate  for 

 ;  and  as  both  and  have  been  by 

this  General  Conference  declared  ineligible  to 
the  seats  to  which  they  were  elected,  can  the  said 

  take  the  seat  in  this  body  thus  made 

vacant  ? 

Answer.  "Yes;   having  taken  the  seat 

to  which  he  was  elected,  and  there  being  a  va- 
cancy in  the  seat  of  the  other  lay  delegates,  and 

 having  been  duly  elected  as  an  alternate 

delegate,  in  our  opinion  he  is  entitled  to  the 
vacant  seat.    (Journal,  1888,  Ji-53.) 

GO 


Elections. 


Dissent  from  any  Disciplinary  mode  of  voting  for 
delegates  to  General  Conference,  adopted  at 
the  discretion  of  an  Annual  Conference,  is 
without  redress. 

The  memorial  of  the  Rev.  ,  of  the  

Conference,  being  equivalent  to  an  appeal  on  a 
point  of  law  from  the  action  of  the   Con- 
ference, and  the  ruling  of  the  presiding  Bishop 
whereby  such  an  action  was  allowed,  rejecting 

the  vote  of  the  said    for  delegates  to  the 

General  Conference,  because  he  voted  for  more 
than  one  delegate  on  one  ballot,  the  said  Confer- 
ence having  ordered  the  election  to  proceed  for 
one  delegate  and  one  only  on  each  ballot,  has 
been  duly  considered,  and  the  following  report 
is  presented : 

1.  There  is  no  disagreement  as  to  the  facts, 
A  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Annual  Con- 
ference in  the  following  words: 

^''Resolved,  That,  in  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  General  Conference,  we  ballot  for  one  at  a 
time,  each  ballot  to  contain  but  one  name;  and 
"when  one  delegate  has  thus  been  chosen,  suc- 
cessive ballots  be  taken  in  the  same  manner  for 
others  until  the  whole  number  to  which  the  Con- 
ference is  entitled  shall  be  selected." 

91 


Geneeal  Conference  Decisions. 


2.   did  protest  against  the  said  action, 

and  his  protest  was  recorded  in  the  Journal. 

3.  The  Bishop  did  decline  to  rule  the  action 
illegal. 

4.  The  ballot  of  the  said  ,  not  conform- 
ing to  the  resolution  above  recited,  was  thrown 
out,  and  he  was  practically  disfranchised. 

The  question  turns  wholly  upon  the  legality 
of  the  action  of  the    Conference  in  de- 

ciding to  elect  but  one  delegate  at  a  time.  If 

that  action  was  illegal,    was  right  in 

refusing  to  conform  to  it,  and  the  Conference, 
in  throwing  out  his  vote,  illegally  deprived 
him  thereof.  But  if  the  action  was  legal,  he, 
by  refusing  to  conform  to  it,  disfranchised 
himself.  Was,  then,  the  action  of  the  Confer- 
ence, under  which  the  vote  of  was  neces- 
sarily thrown  out,  legal  ?  The  Discipline,  para- 
graph 63,  says:  "The  ministerial  delegates  shall 
consist  of  one  member  for  every  forty-five  mem- 
bers of  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed 
either  by  seniority  or  choice  at  the  discretion  of 
such  Annual  Conference."  The  power  to  decide 
whether  by  "seniority  or  choice,"  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  words  "at  the  discretion"  im- 
plies the  right  to  appoint  one  or  more  by  sen- 
iority, and  one  or  more  by  choice.  This  priv- 
92 


Elections. 


ilege  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  carries  with  it 
the  right  to  choose  in  any  way. 

The  usage,  it  is  true,  is  to  vote  for  all  on  one 
ballot ;  but  this  usage  is  not  prescriptive. 

It  is  a  custom,  not  a  law.  The  Conference 
had  power  to  make  any  rule  which  admitted  of 
the  expression  of  preference  by  choice,  and  gave 
to  all  legal  voters  equal  privileges.  It  did  so  in 
this  instance,  and  the  memorialist  has  no  legal 
ground  of  complaint.    (Journal,  188Jf.,  373-Jf.) 

We  have  carefully  considered  the  memorial 

from  the  Conference,  signed  by  and 

others,  touching  the  rights  of  ministers  and 
members  in  certain  specified  cases,  and  beg 
leave  to  submit  the  questions  asked,  together 
with  our  answers: 

Question  1.  Is  it  competent  or  lawful  for 
the  Church  in  any  department  of  administration 
to  deprive  a  member  of  any  privilege  members 
have  been  accustomed  to  enjoy,  such  as  meeting 
in  class  and  love-feast,  communing  at  the  Lord's 
table,  or  voting  at  any  election,  and  having  his 
vote  counted,  without  first  proceeding  against 
him  in  regular  form  of  trial  as  provided  in  the 
Discipline  and  convicting  him  of  some  violation 
of  the  rules  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  competent  for  the  Church 
93 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

to  deprive  any  one  of  its  members  who  is  in  good 
standing  of  any  privilege  to  which  he  is  entitled 
under  the  law,  unless  he  shall  insist  upon  using 
his  privilege  in  an  irregular  or  unlawful  manner. 

Question  2.  Does  the  law  of  the  Church 
giving  the  Annual  Conferences  the  right  to  de- 
cide whether  the  delegates  to  the  General  Con- 
ference shall  be  appointed  by  seniority  or  choice 
imply  the  right  to  compel  the  voters  to  limit 
their  ballots  to  one  name  when  more  than  one 
are  to  be  chosen  ? 

Question  3.  Is  it  lawful  for  the  Annual 
Conference  to  reject  and  throw  out,  without 
counting,  the  vote  of  a  member  for  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  for  any  cause? 

Question  4.  Is  it  lawful  and  right  for  an 
Annual  Conference  to  annex  any  penalty  of  any 
kind  whatever,  or  so  to  construe  any  resolution 
or  rule  of  action,  as  to  imply  a  penalty  or  dis- 
ability to  enjoy  any  privilege  of  a  member  ? 

Answer.  Questions  2,  3,  and  4  were  in  sub- 
stance submitted  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1884,  and  by  it  completely  answered  (see  Jour- 
nal, page  373),  an  epitome  of  which  may  be 
found  in  paragraph  514  of  the  Discipline,  as 
follows:  "When  an  Annual  Conference  is  en- 
titled to  more  than  one  ministerial  delegate  to 
94 


Elections. 


the  General  Conference  it  is  not  unlawful  for 
the  Conference  to  ballot  for  one  delegate  at  a 
time."  We  therefore  deem  further  decision  un- 
necessary.   (Journal,  1888,  453-4.) 

When  a  disputed  question  concerning  Disciplinary 
requirements  as  to  time  a  lay  delegate  has  been 
a  member  of  the  Church  has  been  passed  upon 
by  an  Electoral  Conference,  it  is  not  lawful  to 
go  behind  the  election  returns  of  that  body. 

The  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the 

inquiry,  whether   ,  a  lay  delegate  to  the 

General  Conference  from  the  Conference, 

had  been  a  member  of  the  Church  in  full  con- 
nection for  the  five  consecutive  years  preceding 
his  election,  having  had  the  matter  referred  to 
them  under  consideration,  beg  leave  to  report: 

That  indefinite  statements  were  made  before 
the  Committee,  of  an  inconclusive  character, 
tending  to  raise  some  doubt  whether  said  dele- 
gate had  been  in  full  connection  with  the  Church 
for  the  five  years  immediately  preceding  his  elec- 
tion.  But  it  also  appeared,  from  the  statement 

of  the  secretary  of  the    Conference,  made 

to  the  Committee,  that  the  same  question  had 
been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Electoral  Col- 
95 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

lege  who  chose  said  delegate,  and  that  said  col- 
lege did  not  consider  them  worthy  of  consider- 
ation, and  had  chosen  said  delegate  notwith- 
standing. The  said  delegate  has  been  seated 
upon  credentials  in  due  form;  no  one  contests 
his  right  to  his  seat  in  the  General  Conference ; 
no  remonstrance  has  been  filed  against  his  re- 
maining therein. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  Committee 
have  not  felt  warranted  in  going  behind  the 

action  of  the    Electoral  Conference,  and 

see  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning  said  dele- 
gate's right  to  his  seat.  They,  therefore,  ask 
leave  to  be  discharged  from  any  further  con- 
sideration of  the  matter  so  referred  to  thenj. 
(Journal,  1880,  266.) 

A  ministerial  delegate  to  the  General  Conference 
must  have  traveled  four  full  consecutive  cal- 
endar years. 

Whereas,  The  Discipline  requires  that  a 
delegate  to  the  General  Conference  shall  have 
traveled  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time 
of  entering  the  traveling  connection;  and 

Whereas,  The  words  "from  the  time,"  in 
corresponding  portions  of  the  Discipline,  imply 
consecutive  years  of  service;  and 
96 


Elections. 


Whereas,   has  not  served  for  four  con- 
secutive years  as  a  traveling  preacher  previous 
to  the  session  of  this  Conference ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That,  on  this  ground,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  a  seat  in  this  General  Conference; 
and 

Whereas,  If  the  fragmentary  terras  of  serv- 
ice of  ,  previous  to  the  time  of  his  leaving 

his  work,  be  added  together,  he  still  had  not 
traveled  four  full  calendar  years  previous  to 
leaving  his  work  during  the  current  year ;  there- 
fore, 

Resolved,  That,  on  this  ground,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  his  seat;  and 

Whereas,   has  been  absent  from  his 

work  since  about  August  10,  1879,  without  the 
consent  of  his  presiding  elder ;  and 

Whereas,  On  account  of  this  absence  the 
interests  of  an  important  charge  have  been 
greatly  damaged ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  his  term  of  service  since  Au- 
gust 10th  should  not  be  added  to  the  previous 
fragments  of  his  term  in  order  to  complete  the 
required  four  full  calendar  years;  and 

Whereas,    has  unquestioned  creden- 

tials as  a  reserve  delegate;  and 

Whereas,  He  has  been  in  his  seat  continu- 
7  97 


Genekal  Conference  Decisions. 


ously  from  the  opening  of  the  session,  attending 
to  all  the  duties  of  a  delegate ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That    be  continued  in  his 

seat,  and  authorized  to  draw  the  amount  of  his 
traveling  and  other  expenses.  (Journal,  1880, 
325.) 


98 


CHAPTER  VI. 


MEMBERSHIP. 

Informal  admission  to  Church  membership  is  no 
bar  to  proceedings  in  case  of  trial. 

"May  a  person  who  has  not  been  formally 
received  into  full  connection  in  the  Church,  but 
has  for  a  term  of  years  enjoyed  all  the  privileges 
of  a  member,  and  is  supposed,  by  the  preacher  in 
charge  and  society,  to  be  a  member,  plead  the 
fact  of  his  non-reception  as  a  bar  to  proceedings 
in  case  of  alleged  immorality?" 

Answer.  No.     (Journal,  1860,  298.) 

Properly-authenticated  certificate  of  membership 
must  be  accepted. 

"Is  a  preacher  in  charge  obliged  to  receive 
a  properly-authenticated  certificate  of  a  member 
vphen  he  is  aware  such  reception  would  disturb 
the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church  ?" 

inswer.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  preacher  to  re- 
99 


General,  Conference  Decisions. 

ceive  all  such  certificates.  (Journal,  1860, 
298.) 

The  only  requisite  for  membership  in  a  Sunday- 
school  Board  is  Church  Membership. 

The  Committee  has  had  under  consideration 
the  matter  of  the  appeal  of   from  the  de- 
cision of  Bishop   ,  made  at  the  session  of 

the  Annual  Conference  in  the  year  1889, 

and  respectfully  reports  as  follows: 

The  Bishop  held,  upon  an  appeal  from  the 
ruling  of  the  presiding  elder  made  at  the 

Quarterly  Conference  of  the    Methodist 

Episcopal  Church,  that  it  was  not  necessary  that 
the  persons  appointed  as  members  of  the  Sunday- 
school  Committee  by  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
under  paragraph  346  of  the  Discipline  (edition 
of  1888),  should,  prior  to  their  appointment,  be 
members  of  the  Sunday-school  Board,  but  that 
the  only  prerequisite  to  their  appointment  was 
membership  in  the  Church. 

It  was  claimed  by  the  appellant  that  only 
such  persons  as  were  already  members  of  the 
Board  could  be  appointed  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

It  is  clear  that  the  Board  is  made  up  of  the 
pastor,  the  officers  and  teachers,  and  the  Com- 
100 


Membership. 


mittee  appointed  by  the  Quarterly  Conference. 
The  Board  can  not  have  an  existence  until  the 
Committee  is  appointed,  and  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  appoint  a  Committee  from  a  Board 
which  did  not  exist.  The  provision  in  paragraph 
346,  that  the  members  of  the  Committee  shall 
be  members  of  the  Board,  is  only  an  unnecessary 
repetition  of  the  provision  in  paragraph  345. 

The  decision  of  Bishop    was  correct, 

and  it  should  be  affirmed.  (Journal,  1892, 
488.) 


101 


CHAPTER  VII. 


OEDEES. 

The  ministerial  orders  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  can  not  be  recognized  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

At  the  session  of  the   Conference,  be- 

ginning March  4,  1848,  a  preacher  who  had 
come  to  our  Church  from  the  Eoman  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  who,  while  a  member  of  that 
Church,  had  been  ordained  a  priest,  applied  in 
due  form  to  be  recognized  as  an  elder  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  the  ground  of 
his  ordination  to  the  priesthood  in  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Church.  Pending  this  application,  the 
question  was  raided  as  to  his  eligibility  to  recog- 
nition under  the  provision  of  the  Discipline,  in 
paragraph  155,  section  2,  for  the  recognition  of 
the  orders  of  ministers  of  "other  Evangelical 
Churches"  who  may  desire  to  unite  with  us; 
whereupon  the  president  of  the  Conference  held, 
that  this  applicant  is  not  legally  qualified  for 
recognition  under  the  section  of  the  Discipline, 
102 


Obdees. 


the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  not  being  an  "Evan- 
gelical Church"  within  the  meaning  of  that  term 
as  therein  used. 

The  Committee,  after  a  careful  examination 
of  this  question,  report  that  the  above  ruling  is 
correct,  and  for  the  reason  therein  stated. 
(Journal,  188^,  373.) 

A  minister  coming  from  an  Evangelical  Church 
having  but  one  ministerial  order,  may  be  re- 
ceived either  as  deacon  or  elder. 

Your  Committee  has  considered  the  matter 

of  the  appeal  of  from  the  ruling  of  Bishop 

 ,  made  at  the  Annual  Conference  at 

its  session  in  1890,  and  respectfully  reports: 

 ,  a  minister  of  the  "Brethren  Church," 

applied  for  admission  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ference. The  Brethren  Church  has  but  one 
order  of  ministers.    The  question  being  raised 

as  to  whether  said  should  he  received  as  a 

deacon  or  elder,  ,  a  member  of  the  Confer- 
ence, and  the  appellant  here,  raised  the  point 
that  he  could  only  be  received  as  an  elder. 

Bishop  ,  presiding,  ruled  that  he  could 

be  received  either  as  deacon  or  as  elder,  in  the 
discretion  of  the  Conference,  and  thereupon  the 
Conference,  by  vote,  admitted  him  as  a  deacon. 
103 


General  Conference  Decisions 

The  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  rul- 
ing of  Bishop  was  correct,  and  it  should  be 

affirmed.    (Journal,  1892,  488-9.) 

Women  are  not  eligible  to  ministerial  orders. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  ,  of  the 

 Conference,  in  the  case  of  Sister  ,  the 

Judiciary  Committee  respectfully  report:  That 

it  appears  from  the  record  that  Sister  had 

been  recommended  to  orders  by  a  Quarterly 
Conference,  and,  upon  said  recommendation 
coming  before  the  said  Annual  Conference, 

Bishop  ,  then  presiding,  gave  the  following 

decision,  to  wit : 

"In  my  judgment  the  law  of  the  Church  does 
not  authorise  the  ordination  of  women ;  I,  there- 
fore, am  not  at  liberty  to  submit  to  the  vote  of 
the  Conference  the  vote  to  elect  women  to 
orders." 

Your  Committee  have  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  such  ruling  was  in  accordance  with  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  is,  and  with  the 
uniform  usage  of  administration  under  it. 

The  Committee,  therefore,  report  that  said 
appeal  should  not  be  sustained.  (Journal, 
1880,  358.) 

104 


Orders. 


Women  may  not  be  licensed  to  preach. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  ,  of  the 

  Conference,  the  Judiciary  Committee  re- 
spectfully report  that  it  appears  from  the  record 

certified  to  us  that,  at  District  Conference, 

held  February  27,  1878,  Sister    was  li- 
censed as  a  local  preacher,  whereupon   ap- 
pealed from  the  action  of  said  Conference. 

Bishop  ,  presiding  at  the  Annual 

Conference,  upon  the  coming  in  of  said  appeal, 
made  the  following  decision: 

"In  strictness  the  appeal  should  have  been 
made  from  the  decision  of  the  president  of  the 
District  Conference,  in  entertaining  and  put- 
ting to  vote  the  motion  to  grant  such  license, 
since  the  Discipline  puts  upon  him  the  decision 
of  all  questions  of  law  in  the  District  Confer- 
ence, and  provides  for  appeal  therefrom.  (Disci- 
pline, par.  163,  sec.  6.)  Waiving  this  informal- 
ity, I  give  my  judgment  that  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church  does  not  provide  for  nor  contemplate 
the  licensing  of  women  as  local  preachers,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  action  of  said  Conference, 
and  of  its  president,  was  without  authority  of 
law." 

The  Committee  report  that  they  have  come 
105 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 


to  the  conclusion  that  such  ruling  of  the  presid- 
ing Bishop  was  in  accordance  with  the  Disci- 
pline of  the  Church  as  it  is,  and  with  the  uni- 
form course  of  administration  under  it.  We, 
therefore,  report  that  said  appeal  should  not  be 
sustained.    (Journal,  1880,  353-4.) 


106 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


PREACHERS. 

Supernumerary  and  superannuated  preachers  have 
the  right  to  vote  in  the  Quarterly  Conference 
where  they  reside. 

They  also  wish  a  declaration  as  to  ''whether, 
according  to  paragraphs  191, 192,  superannuated 
and  supernumerary  preachers  residing  out  of  the 
bounds  of  their  Conferences  are  members  of  the 
Quarterly  Conference  where  they  reside  in  such 
sense  as  to  entitle  them  to  vote  therein." 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  superannu- 
ated and  supernumerary  preachers  residing  out 
of  the  bounds  of  their  Annual  Conferences  are 
members  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  where 
they  reside  in  such  sense  as  to  entitle  them  to 
vote  therein.    (Journal,  1892,  J, 90.) 

A  preacher  in  charge  has  the  right  to  control  the 
religious  services  of  our  Church  within  his 
charge. 

The  following  question  has  been  submitted: 
"When  a  superanuated,  supernumerary,  or 
107 


Genekal  Conference  Decisions. 


local  preacher  makes  an  appointment  and  con- 
ducts religious  services  within  the  bounds  of  a 
station,  circuit,  or  mission,  to  which  a  pastor 
has  been  appointed,  without  the  consent  of  the 
pastor,  is  the  preacher  thus  obtruding  his  serv- 
ices guilty  of  improper  conduct,  and  subject  to 
charges  and  trial  ?" 

Answer.  The  appointment  of  a  preacher  to 
the  charge  of  any  mission,  circuit,  or  station, 
implies  the  right  to  control  the  religious  services 
of  our  Church  within  its  bounds.  (Journal, 
188h  377.) 

A  suspended  preacher  has  no  claim  for  salary  dur- 
ing his  period  of  suspension. 

Your  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
following  question,  namely, — "What  claim  has 
a  traveling  preacher  on  a  congregation  or  an 
Annual  Conference  for  his  salary,  who  has  been 
tried  and  suspended  in  the  interval  of  Annual 
Conference  sessions,  and  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence, on  further  investigation,  finds  him  not 
guilty  of  the  crime  for  which  he  has  been  sus- 
pended ?" — have  carefully  considered  the  same, 
and  report  that,  while  they  recognize  and  are 
mindful  that  to  deprive  a  traveling  preacher  of 
his  salary  while  suspended  on  unsustained 
108 


Preacheks. 


charges  works  a  hardship,  yet  your  Committee 
submit  that,  by  the  law  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  where  a  traveling  preacher  is  sus- 
pended and  restored,  as  in  the  case  stated  herein, 
he  has  no  claim  on  the  congregation  or  the  An- 
nual Conference  for  his  salary  during  such  pe- 
riod of  suspension ;  and  to  your  Committee  this 
law  appears  to  be  wise,  as  well  as  based  upon 
sound  judicial  principles.  (Journal,  1881^, 
380.) 

A  suspended  preacher  has  no  right  to  exercise  min- 
isterial functions  till  his  ministerial  disabil- 
ities are  removed. 

See  tlic  case  mentioned  on  "page  37. 

A  transfer  made  without  request  of  the  minister 
transferred  carries  with  it  the  right  to  an  ap- 
pointment. 

The  Committee  on  Judiciary  have  given  at- 
tention to  the  following  questions,  presented  by 
Bishop  Andrews  for  adjudication: 

"Can  a  Bishop,  in  accordance  with  the  Disci- 
pline and  usages  of  the  Church,  with  or  without 
the  desire  of  a  preacher  holding  an  effective 
relation,  transfer  said  preacher,  without  at  the 
109 


General  Conference  Decisions 

same  time  giving  him  an  appointment  in  the 
Conference  to  which  the  transfer  is  made ;  and, 
if  so;  under  what  conditions  and  limitations  ?" 

To  this  question  the  Committee  give  the  fol- 
lowing answer: 

The  Episcopacy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  a  unit,  and  our  economy  assumes 
harmony  of  action.  But  Bishops  are  many,  and 
in  the  division  of  the  work  into  difFerent  Con- 
ferences presided  over  by  different  Bishops,  a 
Bishop  can,  in  accordance  with  the  Discipline 
and  usages  of  the  Church,  transfer  an  effective 
preacher,  Avith  or  without  his  desire,  into  a  Con- 
ference under  the  jurisdiction  of  another  Bishop 
without  at  the  same  time  himself  giving  him  an 
appointment.  But  every  effective  preacher  is 
entitled  to  an  appointment  within  the  Confer- 
ence of  which  he  is  a  member.  His  transfer  to 
another  Conference  carries  with  it  this  right, 
and  should  not,  therefore,  be  made  without  at 
the  same  time  making  adequate  provision  in  a 
regular  manner  for  its  protection.  iN'everthe- 
less,  if  a  preacher  requests  such  a  transfer  to  a 
Conference,  not  to  meet  for  some  time  after  his 
transfer,  he  can  not  complain  if  he  does  not 
receive  work  till  the  next  ensuing  session  of  the 
Conference.  (Journal,  188 Jf,  371-2) 
110 


Preachers. 


A  Presiding  Elder  may  not  give  certificate  of 
withdrawal  to  a  superannuate  of  another  Con- 
ference. 

The  following  question  and  answer  are  from 

the  Journal  of  the    Conference,  and  were 

referred  to  the  Committee : 

''When  a  superannuated  member  of  a  sister 
Conference,  residing  in  the  bounds  of  our  Con- 
ference, concludes  to  withdraw  from  the  Church, 
can  the  presiding  elder  give  him  a  certificate  of 
withdrawal  ?" 

Answer.  'No. 

We  respectfully  recommend  concurrence  in 
the  decision  of  the  Chair  as  the  correct  ruling. 


Ill 


CHAPTER  IX. 


TRIALS. 

The  Chairman  of  a  Select  Committee  may  not  dis- 
miss a  complaint. 

The  Committee  on  Itinerancy  having  ex- 
amined that  part  of  the  Journal  of  the   

Conference  which  relates  to  the  case  of   , 

referred  to  them  for  consideration,  would 
report  that,  as  it  appears,  charges  and  speci- 
fications were  preferred  against  the  said 
brother,  and  referred  by  the  Conference  for 
trial  to  a  Select  Number  of  nine,  according  to 
the  Discipline,  with  a  chairman  appointed  by 
the  Bishop.  On  the  assembling  of  the  Select 
Number,  their  chairman,  without  the  consent 
of  the  Committee,  dismissed  the  case  on  account 
of  informality  and  indefiniteness  in  the  charges 
and  specifications.  Notice  was  given  that  the 
action  in  the  case  would  be  brought  before  this 
112 


Trials, 


General  Conference.  Yonr  Committee  recom- 
mend for  adoption  the  following,  namely: 

Resolved,  That  the  Select  ISTumber  appointed 
to  try  accused  members  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence act  in  the  case  in  the  stead  and  with  the 
powers  of  the  Conference  itself,  and  its  chair- 
man is  in  the  place  of  the  Bishop.  It  is  thei'e- 
fore  improper  for  the  chairman  in  such  a  case 
to  dismiss  a  complaint.    (Journal,  ISdJi,  360.) 

An  accusation  of  slander  can  not  be  received  if  not 
signed  by  the  person  claiming  to  be  slandered, 
nor  if  signed  by  him  immediately  after  the 
defect  has  been  pointed  out. 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeals  from  the  rul- 
ings of  Bishop  ,  made  at  the  Annual 

Conference  in  the  year  1889 :  The  presiding 
elder  having  received  charges  in  writing  against 
 ,  a  member  of  the    Annual  Confer- 
ence, summoned  a  Committee  of  Investiga- 
tion. The  Committee  having  met,  upon  mo- 
tion of  counsel  for  the  defendant  the  pre- 
siding elder  struck  out  the  second  charge, 
which  charge  was  slander.  Said  charge  had 
not  been  brought  or  signed  by  the  person  al- 
leged to  have  been  slandered,  and  upon  this 
ground  the  charge  was  stricken  out.  The  pre- 
8  113 


General  Confekence  Decisions. 


siding  elder  also  held  that  the  Committee  must 
decide  only  upon  the  charges  made,  and  that  it 
had  no  authority  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of  a  dif- 
ferent offense  from  that  charged,  unless  the 
same  was  germane  to  the  original  charge.  From 
these  rulings  an  appeal  was  taken,  and  the 

same  came  before  Bishop   ,  who  presided 

at  the  next  session  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence. He  sustained  the  rulings  of  the  presiding 
elder,  except  he  held  that  the  presiding  elder, 
on  receiving  charges,  may  rule  out  such  as  are 
not  actionable  before  he  cites  the  accused  to  trial 
or  calls  a  Committee ;  but  having  placed  charges 
in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  and  furnished 
the  accused  Avith  a  copy,  his  right  to  change  the 
bill  of  charges  is  at  an  end. 

Your  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
ruling  of  the  Bishop  was  correct,  save  that, 
under  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  it  was 
proper  for  the  presiding  elder,  upon  motion  of 
the  accused,  to  strike  out  the  charge  of  slander. 
(Journal  1892, 1^90-1.) 

A  Judicial  Conference  has  no  authority  to  formu- 
late a  new  charge. 

The  Rev.  ,  of  the  Conference,  was 

brought  to  trial  before  a  Select  Number  upon 
114 


Trials. 


two  charges:  the  first,  immorality,  with  one 
specification ;  the  other,  lying,  with  three  speci- 
fications. 

The  first  charge  and  specification,  and  the 
second  charge  and  the  second  and  third  specifi- 
cations, were  sustained,  and  he  was  sentenced  to 
deposition  from  the  ministry  and  expulsion  fi'om 
the  Church. 

Having  appealed,  the  case  came  before  the 
Judicial  Conference  held  at  Columbus  in  De- 
cember, 1891.  The  Judicial  Conference  re- 
versed the  finding  upon  the  specifications  of  the 
second  charge  and  the  second  charge.  It  re- 
versed the  finding  upon  the  first  charge,  but  did 
not  reverse  the  specification  under  that  charge. 
Then,  to  quote  the  language  of  the  record,  the 
Conference  ''agreed  that  the  testimony  presented 
to  this  Judicial  Conference  in  support  of  the 
specification  under  the  first  charge  proves  that 

the  Eev.  has  been  guilty  of  imprudent  and 

unchristian  conduct,"  and  it  thereupon  sus- 
pended him  from  the  ministry  until  the  next 
session  of  the  Annual  Conference. 

The  specification  not  reversed  under  the  first 
charge  is  very  vague  and  indefinite,  and  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  is  sufficient  to  sustain  any 
charge.  The  Judicial  Conference  did  not  find 
115 


General  Cokfeeence  Decisions. 

it  sufficient,  but  from  the  testimony  it  formu- 
lated a  new  charge,  of  Avhich  it  then  found  the 
accused  guilty. 

Your  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Judicial  Conference  in  this  affirmative  action 
exceeded  its  authority,  and  that  the  sentence  of 
suspension  should  be  vacated,  and  the  accused 
be  restored  to  all  the  rights  of  a  traveling 
preacher.    (Journal,  1892,  491-2.) 

In  order  to  affirm  or  reverse  the  decisions  of  a 
lower  court,  the  whole  of  the  findings  must  be 
considered. 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  That  the  decision  of  the    Con- 
ference, in  the  case  of   ,  by  which  it 

voted  that  he  had  boon  guilty  of  violating  his 
pledge,  and  of  contumacious  conduct,  be,  and 
hereby  is,  reversed. 

The  chair  decided  the  above  out  of  order,  as 
not  embracing  the  whole  of  the  action  or  find- 
ings of  the  Conference  in  this  case,  stating 

that  the  Conference  must  affirm  or  reverse  the 
decision,  or,  for  want  of  formality,  refer  it  back 
for  a  new  trial. 


116 


Trials. 


On  motion  of   ,  an  appeal  was  taken 

from  the  decision  of  the  chair. 

The  decision  of  the  chair  was  sustained. 

  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  sustain- 
ing the  decision  of  the  chair.   Laid  on  the  table. 

 moved  the  following: 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  That  the  decision  of  the   Con- 
ference, in  the  case  of  ,  be  affirmed. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 
(Journal,  1852,  51-2.) 

Evasion  of  law  is  violation  of  law,  and  acts  done 
under  the  same  are  null  and  void  from  the  be- 
ginning. 

The  Committee  on  Judiciary  has  carefiilly 
considered  the  memorial  of  the  Troy  Annual 
Conference  in  relation  to  the  trial  and  expulsion 

of  from  the  Street  Church,  in  , 

and  also  the  trial  of  Rev.   by  the  "Select 

Number"  appointed  by  the  Conference  at 

its  last  session,  wherein  the  said  was  found 

guilty  of  maladministration,  and  also  the  me- 
morial and  petition  of  the  Rev.   ,  in  an- 
swer to  the  memorial  of  said  Annual  Con- 


117 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

ference,  and  find  that,  after  the  trial  and  expul- 
sion of  said  from  said  Street  Church, 

in  ,  the  said  Rev.   ,  being  stationed  at 

 ,  and    Charge,  in  the    Confer- 
ence, did  receive  the  said  into  said  society 

on  probation,  and  at  the  end  of  six  months  there- 
after did  receive  said    into  full  member- 
ship, without  "contrition,  confession,  and  satis- 
factory reformation"  on  the  part  of  said  , 

the  said  having  knowledge  of  the  trial  and 

expulsion  of  said    from  said  Church. 

Your  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that 
membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
can  not  be  gained  in  the  above  manner,  under 
such  conditions  and  circumstances,  as  the  whole 
proceeding  was  fraudulent,  and  evasive  of  the 

disciplinary  action  of  the  Church  at   , 

which  was  well  known  to  said    and  said 

  to  be  in  violation  and  derogation  of  the 

Discipline  of  the  Church. 

And  your  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that 

the  said    is  not  a  member  of  the  Church, 

and  has  not  been  such  member  since  his  trial  and 
expulsion  from  the  said    Street  Church, 

And  your  Committee  recommend  that  the 


118 


Trials. 


following  be  added  to  the  resolution  of  tlie  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1852,  page  73,  namely: 

"Nevertheless,  when  a  member  has  been  ex- 
pelled from  the  Church,  and  has  thereafter 
gained  admission  into  the  Church  elsewhere, 
without  'confession,  contrition,  and  satisfactory 
reformation,'  according  to  paragraph  238,  his 
membership  is  null  and  void,  and  any  certificate 
of  such  membership,  should  not  be  received." 
(Journal  1884,  378.) 

New  trials  may  not  be  granted  or  findings  re- 
versed, in  whole  or  in  part,  on  technical 
grounds. 

The  following  paragraph  contained  in  the 
Address  of  the  Bishops,  has  been  referred  to  the 
J udiciary  Committee  for  their  opinion  thereon : 

"It  has  been  necessary  to  convene  a  consider- 
able number  of  Judicial  Conferences  during  the 
quadrennium.  Our  observation  leads  us  to  com- 
mend to  your  consideration  the  question  whether 
these  Conferences  ought  to  be  longer  permitted 
to  reverse  the  finding  of  the  'Select  Number,' 
or  of  an  Annual  Conference;  or  to  remand  a 
case  for  a  new  trial  on  merely  technical  grounds, 
or  because  of  errors  in  the  proceedings  of  the 


119 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

Court  below,  which  errors  do  not  materially  af- 
fect the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
applicant." 

The  hearing  of  the  appeals  referred  to  in  the 
above,  is  regulated  by  paragraphs  245  and  246 
of  the  Discipline, — the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, with  the  minutes  of  the  trial,  and  all  the 
documents  relating  to  the  case,  are  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Judicial  Conference,  and  upon 
this  record  alone  is  the  case  to  be  decided. 

(Paragraph  245.)  The  point  suggested  by 
the  Bishops,  as  we  understand  it,  is,  whether 
the  judgment  of  the  Court  below  should  be  re- 
versed, and  a  new  trial  granted  for  technical 
errors  not 'affecting  the  merits. 

We  think  it  should  not,  with  certain  excep- 
tions, of  a  special  character,  not  necessary  to  be 
noticed  here. 

Courts  of  law,  as  well  as  of  equity,  have 
very  generally  adopted  the  rule  of  deciding 
appeals  according  to  the  veiy  right  of  the  case, 
disregarding  such  errors  of  the  lower  tribunal 
as  plainly  could  not  have  affected  the  result. 
Informalities  in  the  mode  of  proceeding,  not 
prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  the  parties — even 
erroneous  rulings  in  the  admission  or  rejection 


120 


Teials. 


of  testimony,  where  such  errors  have  been  cor- 
rected at  a  subsequent  stage  of  the  trial,  or  when 
it  is  apparent  they  have  not  led  to  a  decision 
different  from  what  would  otherwise  have  been 
reached — should  not  be  allowed  to  vitiate  a 
judgment  which  stands  upon  solid  grounds,  un- 
less the  Appellate  Court,  however,  can  see 
clearly  that  the  errors  complained  of,  have  not 
operated  to  the  substantial  injury  of  the  appel- 
lant, a  new  trial  should  be  ordered. 

This  view  of  the  case  derives  confirmation 
from  paragraph  247,  which  provides,  that  "the 
General  Conference  shall  carefully  review  the 
decisions  of  questions  of  law  contained  in  the 
records  and  dociiments  transmitted  to  it  from 
the  Judicial  Conferences,  and,  in  case  of  serious 
error  therein,  shall  take  such  action  as  justice 
may  require." 

The  general  purpose  of  the  code,  seems  to 
be  to  secure  substantial  right,  rather  than  to 
concern  itself  with  unimportant  errors. 

A  "serious  error,"  is  one  affecting  a  substan- 
tial right ;  any  other  mistake  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  interfere  with  the  course  of  justice. 

Our  conclusion  is  likewise  in  harmony  with 
the  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 


121 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


General  Conference  of  1880,  and  the  action  of 
the  Conference  thereon,  in  a  case  coming  from 

the    Conference.    (8ee  Journal  of  1880, 

page  354.) 

But,  for  greater  certainty  in  this  respect, 
and  also  to  give  the  Judicial  Conferences  the 
right  in  proper  eases  to  modify  the  decision  ap- 
pealed from,  we  propose  the  following,  to  be 
added  at  the  end  of  paragraph  246:  "It  may 
affirm  or  reverse  the  findings  and  decision  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  or  affirm  in  part,  and  re- 
verse in  part ;  but  it  shall  not  reverse  the  same, 
or  remand  the  case  for  a  new  trial,  on  account 
of  errors  plainly  not  affecting  the  result." 
(Journal,  188 J^,  370-1.) 

In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  of   , 

of  the    Conference,  from  the  decision 

of  a  Judicial  Conference,  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee report,  that  while  an  informality  oc- 
curred upon  the  trial  before  the  Conference 
Committee,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  ob- 
jected to,  and  it  was  not  of  a  nature  to  give 
rise  to  any  suspicion  of  injury  to  the  accused. 

If  objection  had  been  made  at  the  time,  the 
irregularity  could  have  been  avoided ;  it  should, 
therefore,  be  regarded  as  waived. 

There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any 
122 


Trials. 


serious  error  committed,  nor  any  injustice  done 
to  the  accused.  We,  therefore,  report  that  said 
appeal  should  not  be  sustained.  (Journal, 
1880,  354.) 

A  Judicial  Conference  may  affirm  in  part  and  re- 
verse in  part  the  findings  of  a  lower  court. 

Your  Committee  has  carefully  examined 

the  records  and  documents  in  the  case  of  , 

a  minister  of  the    Annual  Conference, 

tried  upon  certain  charges  and  found  guilty, 
and  which  case  was  afterward,  upon  appeal, 
heard  by  a  Judicial  Conference,  and  the  de- 
cision of  the  Annual  Conference  affirmed  in  part 
and  reversed  in  part.  And  your  Committee 
reports  that  it  finds  no  serious  error  in  the  pro- 
ceedings, and  that  no  action  is  required  therein. 
(Journal,  1892,  Jf90.) 

A  Judicial  Conference  may  modify  the  sentence  of 
a  lower  court  without  any  modification  of  the 
findings  of  said  court. 

In  the  matter  of  the  complaint  of  and 

 ,  touching  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Con- 
ference in  the  case  of  the  Kev.  ,  a  member 

of  Conference : 

During  the  session  of  the  said    Con- 

123 


General  Confeeence  Decisions. 


ference,  held  at  ,  the  said  was  brought 

to  trial  before  a  Select  Number  under  a  charge 
of  "gross  deception." 

The  charge  was  sustained,  and  the  defendant 
was  deposed  from  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  The  defendant  appealed 
from  this  decision,  and  the  said  appeal  was 

tried,  ,  at  ,  by  a  Judicial  Conference, 

composed  of  Triers  of  Appeals  from  the  , 

 ,  and  Conferences,  Bishop  pre- 
siding. The  following  verdict  was  rendered 
by  the  said  Judicial  Conference :  "The  Judicial 
Conference,  in  the  case  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  vs.  ,  hereby  modifies  the  pen- 
alty from  expulsion  from  the  ministry,  to  sus- 
pension from  the  ministry  until  the  ensuing 
session  of  his  Conference," 

Against  this  decision,  and  ,  of  the 

counsel  of  the  Church,  complain,  "challenging 
the  action  of  the  Judicial  Conference  on  the 
ground  that  it  violated  the  law  of  the  Church 
in  modifying  the  sentence  of  the  lower  court 
without  any  modification  of  the  finding." 

Your  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
decision  of  the  Judicial  Conference  was  in  har- 
mony with  the  law  in  the  case,  and  recoimnends 
that  it  be  affirmed.    (Journal,  1900,  456.) 
124 


Trials. 


A  Judicial  Conference  can  not  modify  the  sentence 
of  an  Annual  Conference  if  charges  and  spec- 
ifications are  sustained  and  a  new  trial  denied. 

Eegarding  the  case  of   ,  the  Commit- 
tee reports : 

At  the  session  of  the    Annual  Con- 

ference, held  in  the  year  1888,  charges  were 

brought  against  said   ,  then  a  member  of 

that  Conference.  He  was  charged,  among  other 
things,  with  dishonesty ,  there  being  two  specifi- 
cations: First,  that  he  had  collected  certain 
moneys  for  a  periodical  named,  and  had  con- 
verted them  to  his  own  use;  and,  second,  that 
he  had  received  money  from  the  treasurer  of  his 
Church  for  the  purpose  of  paying  certain  bills 
of  the  Church,  and  had  converted  it  to  his  own 
use.  He  was  also  charged  with  imprudent  and 
unchristian  conduct,  the  specification  referring 
to  certain  acts  with  respect  to  a  young  woman, 
named. 

At  the  trial,  the  above-mentioned  specifica- 
tions were  sustained,  and  the  charges  were  sus- 
tained, and  he  was  deposed  from  the  ministry. 

Having  been  appealed,  the  matter  came  be- 
fore a  Judicial  Conference,  composed  of  Triers 

of  Appeal  from  ,   ,  and    Annual 

Conferences,  Bishop  presiding. 

135 


Geneeal  Conference  Decisions. 


The  Judicial  Conference  voted  to  reverse 
the  finding  upon  the  first  specification  of  the 
first  charge,  but  sustained  the  finding  upon  the 
other  specification  of  the  first  charge,  and  sus- 
tained the  specification  of  the  second  charge 
and  the  charge,  and  it  voted  not  to  remand  the 

case  for  a  new  trial.    Thereupon  Bishop   

ruled  that  the  Judicial  Conference  could  not 
then  modify  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  An- 
nual Conference. 

The  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 

ruling  of  Bishop    was  correct,  and  it 

should  be  affirmed.    (Journal,  1892,  Jf89.) 

Signers  of  charges  and  witnesses  in  a  case  can  not 
be  members  of  a  court  trying  the  accused. 

Your  Committee  has  had  under  considera- 
tion the  matter  of  the  appeal  of  from  the 

decision  of  Bishop  ,  made  at  the  se.  -ion  of 

the  Annual  Conference  in  the  year  1892, 

and  respectfully  reports  as  follows: 

 ,  a  member  of  the   Society,   

Circuit,    Conference,  was  charged,  among 

other  things,  with  immoral  conduct,  to  wit, 
lying.  Upon  this  charge  he  was  convicted  and 
expelled  from  the  Church.   He  took  an  appeal  to 


126 


Tkials. 


the  Quarterly  Conference.  Five  members  of 
said  Conference  had  signed  the  charges  on  which 
he  was  tried  in  the  court  below,  and  two  mem- 
bers of  said  Conference  were  witnesses  against 
him  in  the  court  below. 

At  the  trial  before  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence (  ,  presiding  elder),  Mr.    made 

a  motion  not  to  allow  the  five  persons  who  had 
preferred  the  charges  against  him  and  the 
two  persons  who  had  been  witnesses  against 
him  in  the  court  below  to  vote  upon  the  case, 
and  that  they  be  ordered  to  retire  from  con- 
sideration of  the  same.  This  motion  the  pre- 
siding elder  overruled,  to  which  ruling   

excepted,  and  the  charge  being  sustained,  ap- 
pealed to  the  Bishop  of  the   Annual  Con- 
ference. 

Bishop   ,  presiding,  sustained  the  rul- 
ing of  the  presiding  elder,  and  held  that  all 
members  of  said  Quarterly  Conference  who  had 
signed  said  charges  had  a  right  to  vote  on  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  said   ,  to  which  rul- 
ing said   ,  through  his  counsel,  excepted, 

and  thereafter  perfected  an  appeal  from  said 
decision  to  the  General  Conference. 

Your  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 


127 


General  Conference  Decisions. 

decision  was  erroneous,  and  it  recommends  that 
the  decision  be  reversed,  and  that  the  case  be 
remanded  for  a  new  trial  by  the  Quarterly  Con- 
ference.   (Journal,  1896,  Jf23.) 

Members  of  a  Judicial  Conference,  not  being  pres- 
ent, it  is  not  lawful  for  those  who  are  present 
to  hear  the  case  or  to  pass  judgment. 

In  the  case  of  the  Judicial  Conference,  held 

at   ,  to  hear  the  appeal  of    from  the 

action  of  the    Conference,  it  appears  that 

only  tv/o  of  the  triers  were  in  attendance ;  but,  by 
agreement  of  all  parties  interested  to  waive  ob- 
jections and  abide  the  decision  of  the  triers 
present,  the  appeal  was  tried,  and  the  decision 
of  the  Conference  reversed. 

In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee  this 
procedure  was  unauthorized  by  the  law  in  the 
case,  and  would  therefore  be  an  unsafe  prece- 
dent to  follow.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  result 
seems  to  have  been  generally  satisfactory,  and 
justice  does  not  seem  to  require  further  action, 
we  recommend  the  General  Conference  to  let 
it  pass  without  further  notice.  (Journal,  1876, 
335.) 


128 


Trials. 


A  Committee  of  Trial  or  Select  Number  can  not 
hold  a  session  after  final  adjournment  of  Con- 
ference for  the  trial  of  a  minister. 

"We  have  been  instructed  to  consider  and 
report  whether  a  Committee  of  Trial  (or  Select 
ICmnber)  may  hold  a  session,  after  the  final 
adjournment  of  the  Annual  Conference,  for 
trial  of  a  . minister. 

We  find  no  specific  law  in  this  case.  "The 
Committee  of  Trial"  or  "Select  !N"umber"  is 
evidently  only  the  representative  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  and  subject  to  its  laws  of  action. 
Specific  provisions  are  made  for  proceeding 
against  an  accused  minister  "in  the  interval  of 
the  Annual  Conference,"  which  precludes  the 
method  of  trial  by  the  Committee  of  the  An- 
nual Conference. 

It  seems  hardly  logical  to  say  the  Annual 
Conference  can  perpetuate  its  existence  after 
its  official  adjournment,  or  that  the  Annual 
Conference  can  meet  more  than  once  a  year. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  opinion  of  the  Commit- 
tee that  the  question  referred  to  them  should  be 
answered  in  the  negative.  ( J ournal,  186 Jf^  355.) 


9 


129 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Questions  determining  testimony  are  questions  of 
law. 

Resolved,  That  questions  relating  to  the  ad- 
missibility of  testimony  are  questions  of  law. 
(Journal,  18^8,  127.) 

If  a  preacher  takes  an  adjudged  case  from  a  Select 
Committee  to  a  Quarterly  Conference  for  trial, 
it  is  an  application  for  a  new  trial. 

Resolved,  That  when  a  preacher,  who  differs 
in  judgment  from  the  majority  of  the  society, 
or  the  Select  N'umber,  concerning  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  an  accused  person,  carries  up  the 
trial  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  it  is  an  ap- 
plication for  a  new  trial. 

Resolved,  That  in  no  case  of  an  appeal,  can 
new  evidence  be  admitted.  (Journal,  ISJ^-S, 
127.) 

''Is  there  in  the  Discipline  anything  au- 
thorizing a  Quarterly-meeting  Conference  to 
remand  a  case  for  a  new  trial  ?" 

Ansiver.  When  the  preacher  in  charge  dif- 
fers ''in  judgment  from  the  majority  of  the 
society,  or  the  Select  Number,  concerning  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  person,"  and 
refers  the  case  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  that 
body  has  "authority  to  order  a  new  trial."  (Dis- 
130 


Trials. 


ciplinc,  p.  90.)  And  in  other  cases,  the  power 
to  remand  for  what  the  Conference  may  deem 
sufficient  cause,  is  inherent  in  that  body  as  an 
appellate  court.    (Journal,  1860,  SOI.) 

Testimony  taken  before  a  Committee,  in  the  case 
of  a  member  of  an  Annual  Conference,  is  evi- 
dence in  the  same  case  before  an  Annual  Con- 
ference. 

Resolved,  That  testimony  taken  before  a 
Committee  sitting  in  the  case  of  an  accused 
member  of  an  Annual  Conference,  is  to  be  re- 
ceived as  evidence  on  the  trial  of  said  minis- 
ter before  the  Annual  Conference,  and  that  a 
rule  for  taking  such  testimony  shall  be  provided. 
(Journal,  ms,  126.) 

A  verdict  is  in  the  control  of  the  Select  Number 
that  tries  the  case  until  it  is  formally  pre- 
sented to  the  Annual  Conference. 

A  complaint  has  been  made  that  a  sealed 

verdict  in  the  case  of  ,  a  member  of  

Annual  Conference,  had  been  lodged  with  the 
secretary  of  tlie  said  Conference;  that  it  had 
been  returned  by  the  said  secretary  to  the  chair- 
man of  the  Select  Xumber ;  and  that  this  action 
was  irregular  and  illegal. 

131 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Your  Committee  is  not  in  possession  of  fnll 
information  as  to  the  circumstances  in  this  mat- 
ter. That  which  it  has  is  wholly  ex  parte,  and 
it  is,  therefore,  not  able  to  pronounce  any  ju- 
dicial opinion  in  the  case.  We  are,  neverthe- 
less, of  the  opinion  that  until  a  verdict  is  for- 
mally presented  to  the  Annual  Conference  it  is 
in  the  control  of  the  Select  Number.  (Jour- 
nal 1900,  Jf56.) 

A  Judge  who  has  formerly  acted  as  counsel  in  a 
case  is  incompetent  to  try  that  case. 

 ,  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 

Church  on  Circuit,  District,  An- 
nual Conference,  was  tried  before  a  Committee 
on  a  charge  of  "immoral  conduct,"  and  was 
found  guilty  and  expelled  from  the  Church.  The 
defendant  appealed  to  the  Quarterly  Conference ; 
the  Quarterly  Conference  (  ,  presiding  el- 
der, in  the  chair)  sustained  the  findings  of  the 
Committee.  The  defendant  appealed  from  the 
rulings  of  the  pi'esiding  elder  to  the  Bishop  pre- 
siding at  the  next  session  of  the  ■  Annual 

Conference.  The  Bishop  sustained  the  rulings. 
The  defendant  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the 
Bishop  to  the  General  Conference  in  1896.  The 
General  Conference  reversed  the  decision  of  the 
132 


Trials. 


Bishop  and  remanded  tlie  case  to  the  Quarterly 
Conference  for  a  new  trial.  A  change  of  venue 
was  granted.  The  case  was  transferred  to 
another  Conference  for  trial.     The  trial  was 

had,  the  said   ,  presiding  elder,  in  the 

chair.  At  this  second  trial  the  finding  of  the 
Committee  was  sustained,  and  the  defendant, 

 ,  appealed  from  certain  rulings  therein  to 

the  Bishop  who  presided  at  the  next  session 
of  the  Annual  Conference.  For  our  pur- 
poses, we  need  only  dwell  upon  the  fourth  ex- 
ception and  in  ruling  thereon,  which  are  as 
follows : 

Exception  4.  That  the  said  Quarterly  Con- 
ference, by  having  the  said  presiding  elder  as  its 
presiding  officer  at  the  trial — he  having  once 
been  attorney  for  the  respondent  and  against 
the  appellant  in  the  case — was  an  illegal  body 

for  the  trial  of  the  said  under  the  laws  of 

the  Church. 

The  Bishop  ruled  that  the  plea  of  the  appel- 
lant, that  the  said   ,  presiding  elder,  was 

incompetent  to  sit  as  president  of  said  Quar- 
terly Conference,  by  reason  of  having  acted  as 
coimsel  for  the  Church  in  the  trial  of  the  case 
in  a  previous  hearing,  was  not  well  taken;  for 
the  reason  that  it  does,  not  appear  that  the  said 
133 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


  was  ever  employed  as  counsel  for  the 

Church  in  the  case,  or  ever  acted  as  counsel,  or 
vpas  ever  present  at  the  hearing  of  the  case,  when 

the  said  was  tried  and  the  record  Avas  made 

which  was  passed  upon  bj  the  Quarterly  Con- 
ference over  which  said    presided.  That 

the  allegation  that  the  said    had  acted  as 

counsel  in  the  ease  was  not  sustained;  as  the 

only  sense  in  which  the  said    acted  as 

counsel  for  the  Church  was  in  regularly  and 
lawfully  defending  his  own  rulings  in  the  Quar- 
terly Conference,  upon  the  appeal  taken  there- 
from to  the  Bishop  presiding  at  the  Annual 
Conference  next  ensuing;  that  such  defense  of 
his  ruling  was  not  in  any  wise  the  act  or  function 
of  a  counsel,  but  the  regular  act  of  a  presiding 
elder ;  that  it  did  not  tend  necessarily  to  bias  the 
presiding  elder's  mind  as  to  the  rights  of  the 
appellant  or  the  merits  of  the  case;  inasmuch 
as  the  hearing  before  the  former  Bishop  did  not 
involve  the  merits,  but  related  solely  to  the  legal- 
ity of  the  rulings  of  the  said  as  presiding 

elder  in  the  Quarterly  Conference. 

From  this  ruling  of  the  Bishop,    ap- 
pealed to  this  General  Conference. 

The  Committee  has  given  much  consider- 


134 


Trials. 


ation  to  this  case  becaiise  of  the  great  importance 
involved. 

The  ruling  of  the  Bishop  affirms  that  , 

presiding  elder,  who  presided  at  the  first 
trial,  before  the  Quarterly  Conference,  as  a 
judge,  and  who  upon  appeal  to  the  Bishop  ap- 
peared as  counsel  and  argued  the  case  for  the 

Church,  and  against   ,  the  defendant,  was 

competent  to  sit  as  judge  and  presiding  officer 
of  the  second  Quarterly  Conference,  in  the  case 
when  remanded  for  the  trial. 

To  this  proposition  we  are  unable  to  give  our 
assent.    The  records  of  the  case  show  that,  on 

September  29,  1892,  before  the  Bishop,   

appeared  and  argued  the  case  as  counsel 
for  the  Church,  and  signed  his  name  to  the 
record  ''as  attorney  for  the  Church  before  the 
Bishop."     By  the  records,  which  alone  we 

may  consider,  the  said    appears  in  the 

first  trial  of  the  defendant  for  the  Quarterly 
Conference  as  presiding  officer  and  judge;  on 
the  appeal  to  the  Bishop  he  appears  as  attorney 
and  counsel  for  the  Church ;  then  when  the  case 
was  returned  he  again  appears  as  presiding 
officer  and  judge  at  the  second  trial  before  the 
Quarterly  Conference. 


135 


Geneeal  Conference  Decisions. 


It  is  an  elementary  principle  of  law  and 
justice,  prevailing  in  all  civilized  countries,  that 
the  judicial  tribunal  before  which  any  person  is 
tried  shall  be  impartial,  without  leaning  or  bias. 
If  the  judge  has  made  himself  a  party  either  to 
the  prosecution  or  defense  he  is  disqualified  to 
sit.  That  one  may  act  as  judge  first,  next  be- 
come an  attorney  or  counsel  in  the  same  case  for 
one  of  the  parties,  either  on  the  side  of  mere 
law  or  on  the  side  of  facts  merely,  and  then, 
when  he  is  reversed  in  the  law,  may  drop  his 
robe  as  counsel  and  sit  as  judge  in  the  same  case 
again,  is  at  war  with  all  the  traditions  of  our 
race,  and  would  seem  to  be  a  mere  travesty  of 
justice.  We  most  emphatically  dissent  from 
such  a  position,  and  conclude  that  the  ruling 
was  wrong,  should  be  reversed,  and  the  case  re- 
manded to  the  Quarterly  Conference  for  a  new 
trial.    (Journal  1900,  J^58-J^60.) 

An  Annual  Conference  must  confirm  its  sentence 
or  correct  its  error. 

Moved,  etc.,  to  take  up  the  appeal  of  . 

Carried. 

Moved  that  the  case  of  ■  •  be  referred  to 

the   Conference,  either  to  confirm  his  ex- 

136 


Elections 


pulsion  or  correct  the  error  in  the  last  Minutes. 
Carried.    (Journal,  1820,  238.) 

Documentary  testimony  need  not  be  entered  in  a 
Conference  Journal,  but  must  be  filed  by  the 
Secretary. 

"  'Qxies.  5.  Must  all  testimony  taken  before 
the  Conference  be  spread  on  the  journal,  or  may 
it  be  written  down  and  kept  in  a  form  separate 
from  the  Journal  V 

"Answer.  Documentary  testimony  need  not 
be  spread  upon  the  Journal,  but  should  be  filed 
and  preserved  by  the  Secretary."  (Journal, 
18Jk8,  129.) 

If  witnesses  will  not  testify  in  open  Conference, 
the  Conference  may  appoint  a  Commission  to 
take  their  testimony,  due  notice  being  given 
the  accused. 

"  ^Question  4.  If  living  witnesses  are  pres- 
ent at  the  seat  of  the  Conference,  but  refuse  to 
give  evidence  in  open  Conference,  is  the  Con- 
ference at  liberty  in  such  a  case  to  appoint  a 
Committee  to  take  such  testimony  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  accused  out  of  the  Conference ;  and, 
if  so  taken,  must  the  testimony  be  written  down 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Conference  V 
137 


General  Conference  Decisions. 


Answer.  The  Conference  has  a  right  to 
appoint  a  Commission  to  take  testimony  when 
the  witnesses  can  not  be  brought  before  the  Con- 
ference, the  opposite  party  being  notified  to 
appear  before  such  Commission,  and  having  the 
right  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses;  in  such 
case  the  testimony  is  to  be  taken  by  a  secretary 
appointed  by  the  Commission,  and  when  re- 
ported to  Conference  it  must  be  filed  and  care- 
fully preserved  by  the  secretary  of  that  body." 
(Journal,  1848,  129.) 


138 


NOTES. 


Page  17.  Supreme  authority.  Supreme,  but  «o< 
absolute.  Article  X  of  the  Constitution  reads:  "The 
General  Conference  shall  have  full  power  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church  under  the  fol- 
lowing limitations  and  restrictions;  namely,"  etc. 
Full  power  is  supreme  power.  Supreme  power  has 
its  limitations;  absolute  power  is  superior  to  and 
independent  of  any  power,  check,  or  restriction  what- 
soever. This  is  not  the  character  of  the  authority 
vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. Nor  is  this  authority  despotic,  which  is  a  form 
of  power  less  by  little  than  absolute  power,  but 
greater  than  supreme  power;  for  this  power  of  the 
General  Conference  is  limited  by  Six  Restrictive 
Rules,  which  can  not  be  altered  or  annulled  without 
due  constitutional  process.  It  will  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  within  the  limits  of  these  restrictions  the 
General  Conference  has  the  unquestionable  right  to 
make  any  rule  or  regulation  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Church. 

Page  17.    Three  separate  and  distinct  divisions. 

"While  the  supreme  power  resides  in  the  aggregate 
ministry  and  laity,  its  exercise  is  distributed  into 
139 


Notes. 


three  departments  in  a  form  analagous  to  that  of  the 
Federal  Government, — the  legislative,  lodged  solely 
in  the  General  Conference;  the  executive,  intrusted  to 
the  Bishops;  and  the  judicial,  diffused  through  va- 
rious Church  Courts.  Like  Congress,  the  General 
Conference  is  the  sole  lawmaking  body.  Subordi- 
nate bodies  can  only  make  rules  to  regulate  their 
own  conduct.  In  like  manner  the  executive  power  is 
exercised  by  the  Episcopacy,  whence  it  operates 
directly  or  indirectly  through  the  whole  Church. 
Standing  at  the  head  and  giving  direction  to  the 
executive  work,  the  Bishops  perform  through  agents 
what  they  are  not  able  to  do  personally,  just  as  the 
President  of  the  United  States  acts  through  agents 
when  unable  to  act  personally.  If  not  allowed  to 
appoint  their  agents,  the  Bishops  could  not  be  justly 
held  responsible  for  the  administration  of  the  affairs 
of  the  Church  any  more  than  the  President  could 
be  held  responsible  for  agents  he  is  not  allowed  to 
appoint.  .  .  .  Again,  the  Courts  of  the  Church 
resemble  in  some  points  those  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment." (D.  Sherman:  Hist,  of  the  Discipline,  3d 
edition,  p.  11.) 

Page  59.  A  Bishop  is  constituted  de  facto.  This 
is  a  decision  of  the  General  Conference  of  1880.  Such 
a  decision  apparently  eliminates  ordination  or  conse- 
cration as  essential  to  the  making  of  a  Bishop.  If  so, 
then  the  decision  is  unconstitutional.  The  history  of 
the  organization  of  the  Church  shows  that  an  or- 
dained, or  consecrated.  Episcopacy  was  the  kind  of 
Episcopacy  established  by  the  fathers,  and  the  kind 
they  imbedded  in  the  Constitution,  which  kind  they 
declared  should  not  be  done  away. 

The  ministers  who  organized  the  Methodist  Epis- 
140 


XOTES. 


copal  Church  accepted  their  first  Bishops  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  "satisfied  with  the  validity  of 
their  Episcopal  Orders."  Bishop  Coke  was  accepted 
as  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  by  virtue  of  his  conse- 
cration at  the  hands  of  Wesley.  Asbury,  although 
performing  all  the  supervisory  duties  of  a  Bishop 
for  many  years,  was  not  regarded  as  a  Bishop  until 
he  was  ordained  to  the  Episcopal  Office,  which  was 
done  according  to  the  Forms  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, revised  by  Wesley  and  adopted  by  the  newly- 
organized  Church.  Valid  Orders,  in  the  judgment  of 
those  who  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
is  essential  to  Episcopacy.  Ordination,  or  consecra- 
tion,— for  the  terms  are  interchangeable, — is  then 
esseiitial  to  the  making  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  this  consecration  can  not  be 
abolished  without  destroying  the  kind  of  Episcopacy 
imbedded  in  the  Constitution.  Moreover,  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1900  expressly  declares,  paragraph  171,  "A 
Bishop  is  to  be  constituted  by  the  election  of  the 
General  Conference  and  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  three  Bishops,  or  at  least  of  one  Bishop  and  two 
elders." 

It  should  be  noted,  also,  that  this  decision,  because 
of  its  incompleteness,  unsettles  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  General  Conference,  in  that  it  does 
not  provide  for  the  vacancy  in  a  delegation  caused 
by  the  election  of  a  delegate  to  the  Episcopal  Office. 
Certainly  a  reserve  delegate  may  take  the  vacated 
seat,  but  this  decision  does  not  so  provide. 

Page  60.    A  Bishop  may  not  submit  to  a  vote. 
This  must  also  apply  to  a  Bishop  presiding  in  a  Gen- 
eral Conference.    Bishop  S.  M.  Merrill,  in  his  very 
valuable  Digest  of  Methodist  Law,  page  72,  revised 
141 


Notes. 


edition  of  1892,  says:  "But  in  presiding  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  the  Bishops  do  not  decide  questions 
of  law.  .  .  .  The  Bishop  in  the  chair  decides  ques- 
tions of  order,  subject,  of  course,  to  appeal;  but  he 
strenuously  refrains  from  any  ruling  that  involves 
a  question  of  law;  and  yet  if  action  were  proposed 
which,  in  his  judgment,  involved  a  violation  of  law 
without  a  formal  modification  of  it,  or  a  breach  of 
the  limitations  of  power  imposed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  would  be  his  duty  to  call  attention  to  the 
supposed  infraction,  and  restrain  the  action  of  the 
Conference,  if  possible.  Indeed,  a  condition  of  things 
is  supposable,  in  which  it  would  he  the  duty  of  the 
Bishop  to  refuse  to  entertain  a  motion,  and  decline 
having  any  part  in  the  transactions  of  the  body.  If 
action  should  be  proposed,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
Constitution,  or  violative  of  vested  rights  protected 
thereby,  the  Bishop  is  bound  to  object,  and  use  all 
the  power  of  his  office  to  preserve  the  organic  law 
in  its  integrity.  He  has  the  right  to  assume  that 
the  proposed  action  has  been  hastily  introduced,  and 
to  insist  upon  a  more  careful  investigation,  and 
finally  to  protest  against  it  in  the  interest  of  law 
and  consistency.  If  overruled,  his  right  to  be  heard 
and  have  his  protest  entered  on  the  Journal,  could 
not  be  denied  without  the  most  flagrant  departure 
from  justice,  such  as  is  not  conceivable.  Although 
not  a  member  of  the  General  Conference,  technically 
speaking,  the  Bishop  is  its  lawful  president,  with 
rights  superior  in  that  position  to  a  mere  acting 
chairman,  and  he  may  not  be  displaced  or  deprived 
of  his  rights  without  formal  action,  suspending  him 
or  deposing  him  from  his  office.  Such  a  conflict  has 
never  occurred,  and  probably  will  never  occur,  and 
yet  it  is  supposable,  and  the  consideration  of  its 
142 


Notes. 


bearing  is  not  improper  in  the  study  of  the  legal 
rights  and  duties  of  the  parties  under  the  Discipline 
of  the  Church." 

Page  61.  By  virtue  of  his  power  to  fix  the  ap- 
pointments. Is  this  "power,"  which  is  affirmed  to  be 
resident  in  the  Episcopacy,  a  power  of  ministerial 
office,  or  of  delegated  function?  In  their  yotes  on 
the  Discipline,  prepared  by  request  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1796,  under  Section  IV,  "Of  the  Elec- 
tion and  Consecration  of  Bishops  and  of  their  duty," 
Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  declare:  "In  considering 
the  present  subject,  we  must  observe  that  nothin.g 
has  been  introduced  into  Methodism  by  the  present 
Episcopal  form  of  government  which  was  not  before 
fully  exercised  by  Mr.  Wesley.  He  presided  in  the 
Conferences;  fixed  the  appointments  of  the  preach- 
ers for  their  several  circuits;  changed,  received,  or 
suspended  preachers  wherever  he  judged  that  neces- 
sity required  it;  traveled  through  the  European  con- 
nection at  large;  superintended  the  spiritual  and 
temporal  business,  and  consecrated  two  bishops, 
Thomas  Coke  and  Alexander  Mather."  (See  Emory's 
Eist.  of  Dis.) 

From  the  above  it  is  clear  that  the  power  to  fix 
the  appointment  belongs  to  the  Episcopal  Office,  and 
can  not  be  taken  from  it  without  changing  the  kind 
of  Episcopacy  derived  from  Wesley  and  accepted  by 
the  founders  of  the  Church  in  1784. 

There  are  some  questions  which  will  naturally 
suggest  themselves,  however,  to  a  student  of  our 
polity,  which  are  not  expressly  answered  by  the 
above,  nor  by  any  published  work  on  our  Church 
government.  For  instance.  Can  a  Bishop,  by  virtue 
of  his  power  to  fix  the  appointments,  transfer  a  su- 
143 


K'OTES. 


pernumerary  from  one  Conference  to  another,  and 
appoint  him  to  a  charge  other  than  as  a  "supply?" 
We  suppose  this  has  been  done,  and  that  some  argu- 
ment may  be  made  in  favor  of  its  legality.  But  if 
the  affirmative  is  held,  then  it  follows  that  a  Bishop, 
and  not  an  Annual  Conference,  has  the  right  to  de- 
termine the  relation  which  a  minister  may  sustain 
to  it,  whether  a  supernumerary,  an  effective,  or  a 
superannuated  relation;  for  once  admit  the  principle 
that  a  Bishop  has  the  power  by  simple  transfer  to 
change  the  Conference  relation  of  a  minister,  then 
he  may  transfer  a  superannuate  or  a  supernumerary 
from  one  Conference,  and  by  act  of  transfer  and 
appointment  make  him  effective  in  another  without 
consent  of  the  Conference  to  which  he  is  transferred, 
which  is  absolutism,  and  not  constitutionalism.  We 
do  not  think  that  it  can  be  shown  from  any  Discipline 
ever  issued  by  the  Church  that  the  authority  to 
determine  Conference  relation  has  ever  been  taken 
away  from  the  Annual  Conference,  or  that  this  power 
has  ever  been  shared  with  the  Episcopacy. 

Again,  the  question  may  arise.  Has  a  Bishop,  by 
virtue  of  his  power  to  fix  the  appointments,  the 
right  to  refuse  to  appoint  a  member  of  an  Annual 
Conference  to  an  office  to  which  he  has  been  elected 
by  the  General  Conference?  Bishop  Merrill,  in  his 
Digest  of  Methodist  Lnw,  p.  19,  1900,  says:  "The 
Bishop  is  the  ultimate  authority  in  all  the  appoint- 
ments except  where  the  General  Conference  elects 
traveling  ministers  to  fill  official  positions.  Every 
preacher  on  the  roll  of  an  Annual  Conference,  in 
full  connection  or  on  probation,  who  is  not  in  office 
by  General  Conference  election,  or  on  the  superan- 
nuated or  supernumerary  list,  must  receive  an  ap- 
pointment from  the  Bishop,  except  in  cases  when 
144 


l^OTES. 


the  Conference  requests  that  one  be  left  without  ap- 
pointment for  the  purpose  of  attending  one  of  our 
schools,  and  the  appointment  must  be  a  real  one,"  etc. 

But  the  Discipline  for  that  same  year,  1900,  reads, 
paragraph  173,  section  3:  "He  may  make  the  fol- 
lowing appointments  annually,  without  limitation  of 
time: 

"1.  The  Corresponding  Secretaries  of  our  Con- 
nectional  Benevolent  Societies  and  Board,  and  the 
Assistant  Corresponding  Secretaries  of  the  Board  of 
Church  Extension. 

"2.  The  Publishing  Agents  at  New  York  and  Cin- 
cinnati," and  other  General  Conference  officials. 

Many  questions  arise  here  which  can  not  be  an- 
swered in  a  mere  note,  such  as  the  one  already  asked, 
and  is  the  word  "may"  in  this  place  mandatory,  as 
the  word  "shall"  is  in  the  preceding  sentences?  And, 
If  a  Bishop  refuses  to  appoint,  is  the  brother  not 
appointed  "without  an  appointment?"  Can  he  legally 
take  possession  of  the  position  to  which  he  is  elected 
by  the  General  Conference?  These,  and  other  ques- 
tions that  may  be  asked,  are  important,  and  should 
be  authoritatively  settled.  Without  question  the  ap- 
pointing power  of  Episcopacy  was  first,  and  General 
Conference  elections  must  be  considered  in  relation 
to  that  inherent  power. 

Finally:  Is  it  constitutional  for  an  elder  presiding 
in  an  Annual  Conference  in  the  absence  of  a  Bishop, 
but  not  appointed  by  the  Bishop  in  charge  of  the 
Conference,  but  elected  to  the  presidency  by  the 
Annual  Conference,  to  fix  the  appointments?  On  the 
face  of  it,  it  is  not  constitutional.  But  in  such  a  case 
as  may  be  easily  supposed,  the  higher  law  of  neces- 
sity, we  think,  would  compel  us  to  assume  that  the 
necessary  Episcopal  power  had  reverted  back  to  the 
10  145 


Notes. 


body  of  elders  whence  it  was  derived,  and  that  the 
appointments  made  by  one  of  their  number,  elected 
by  them  to  the  presidency  of  the  Conference,  would 
be  legal,  the  act  of  the  president  being  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Church,  for  the  benefit  of  which  the  Con- 
stitution exists. 

Page  62.    Legislation  on  this  point  is  inexpedient. 

Such  legislation  would  recognize  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  not  the  Annual  Conference,  as  having 
supervision  over  the  eligibility  of  a  minister  to  mem- 
bership in  an  Annual  Conference. 

Page  63.  Whereas,  The  Bethany  Independent 
Methodist  Church.  It  will  doubtless  appear  strange 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  can  be  lawfully  extended  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  except  in  missionary 
work. 

Page  64.  Required.  We  think  the  word  "re- 
quested" should  have  been  used  instead,  for  the 
reason  that  if  the  President  of  a  Conference  "has 
the  right  to  decline  putting  a  motion"  he  can  not  be 
required  to  note  his  refusal. 

Page  70.  The  President  of  a  Conference  has  the 
right  to  adjourn  said  Conference.  This  is  contrary 
to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  allows  a  Conference 
to  sit  at  least  one  week. 

Page  75.    There  exists  no  power  in  the  General 
Conference.   This  decision  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1848,  that  the  General  Conference  does  not  possess 
the  power  to  divide  the  Church,  is  opposed  by  the  de- 
146 


Notes. 


cision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
1852,  Judge  Nelson  delivering  the  opinion.  The  Court 
declared,  "It  is  insisted,  however,  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  possessed  no  power  to  divide 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  then  organized, 
or  to  consent  to  such  division.  .  .  .  But  we  do 
not  agree  that  this  division  was  made  without  the 
proper  authority.  .  .  .  The  same  authority  which 
founded  the  Church  in  1784  has  divided  it,  and  estab- 
lished two  separate  and  independent  organizations, 
occupying  the  place  of  the  old  one.  .  .  .  The 
power  must  necessarily  be  regarded  as  inherent  in 
the  General  Conference.  As  they  might  have  con- 
structed two  ecclesiastical  organizations  over  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  United  States  originally,  if  deemed  ex- 
pedient, in  the  place  of  one,  so  they  might  at  any 
subsequent  period,  the  power  remaining  unchanged. 
But  it  is  insisted  that  this  power  has  been  taken 
away  or  given  up  by  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1808.  In  that  year  the  Constitution  of 
this  body  was  changed.  ...  At  the  time  of  this 
change,  and  as  part  of  it,  certain  limitations  were 
imposed  upon  the  powers  of  this  General  Confer- 
ence, called  the  Six  Restrictive  Articles.  .  .  . 
Subject  to  these  restrictions,  the  delegated  Confer- 
ence possessed  the  same  powers  as  when  composed 
of  the  entire  body  of  preachers.  And  it  will  be  seen 
that  these  relate  only  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
.  .  .  [and]  .  .  .  the  Episcopacy.  ...  In 
all  other  respects,  and  in  everything  else  that  con- 
cerns the  welfare  of  the  Church,  the  General  Con- 
ference represents  the  sovereign  power  the  same  as 
before."   (Deris.  U.  S.  Supreme  Court.  16,  17,  Howard.) 

The  brevity  of  a  note  precludes  the  possibility  of 
extended  comment  on  the  above;  yet  since  it  has 
U7 


become  necessary  to  quote  this  argument  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  and  laying  aside  all  ideas  of  presump- 
tion on  our  part,  fidelity  to  historic  truth  and  justice 
compels  the  statement  that,  with  all  due  respect 
to  this  learned  and  august  body,  the  argument  ad- 
duced is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  historical  facts. 
It  gives  so  little  weight  to  the  inevitable  conse- 
quences of  its  own  admissions,  and  seems  so  com- 
pletely to  misapprehend  the  avowed  intent  and  pur- 
pose of  all  parties  composing  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  who,  it  must  be  presumed,  knew  what  they 
intended  and  understood  by  their  own  acts  and  lan- 
guage, that,  as  an  argument  in  defense  of  the  with- 
drawal of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  never 
have  received  the  consideration  that  has  been  given 
it  had  it  not  proceeded  from  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

The  same  authority  that  organized  the  Church 
did  hot  divide  it,  from  the  simple  fact  that,  while 
the  persons  in  both  instances  were  ministers,  the 
authority  of  these  persons  was  not  the  same.  There 
is  no  resemblance  whatever  between  the  body  of 
preachers  that  established  the  Church  in  1784  and 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  except  in  that  both 
bodies  were  composed  of  Methodist  ministers.  Here 
the  likeness  begins,  and  here  it  ends.  The  body  that 
met  in  1784  was  not  a  General  Conference;  it  was 
not,  in  fact,  a  Conference  at  all.  It  was  a  called 
meeting,  composed  of  such  preachers  as  could  be 
hastily  got  together.  Bishop  Soule,  the  author  of  the 
Constitution,  in  a  speech  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  designated  it  as  a  "Convention."  Abel  Stev- 
ens, in  his  History  so  designates  it.  Dr.  J.  J.  Tigert, 
of  the  Church  South,  calls  it  a  "Mass  Convention" 
148 


XOTES. 


(Constitutional  History,  etc.,  page  185),  and  denies 
that  it  had  any  constitutional  authority  after  its 
adjournment.  "So  far  was  its  sovereignty  from  being 
constitutionally  projected  over  General  Conferences 
and  the  entire  Church  until  1844  and  the  present 
day,  that  the  true  state  of  the  case  is  its  authority 
was  not  so  much  as  projected  over  the  yearly  Con- 
ferences of  1785  to  1791,  until  the  meeting  of  its 
so-called  successor."  (The  Making  of  Methodism,  p. 
128.)  Dr.  T.  B.  Neely  says.  "It  was  rather  of  the 
nature  of  a  Convention  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing the  question  of  organization."  (The  Governing 
Conf.  of  Methodism,  p.  264.)  Dr.  D.  Sherman,  in  his 
History  of  the  Disrit)line,  p.  10,  refers  to  it  as  an  "ex- 
traordinary assembly,  a  sort  of  Constitutional  Con- 
vention." It  was  restricted  by  no  legal  limitations. 
Its  will  was  not  only  supreme;  it  was  absolute.  In 
the  exercise  of  its  own  absolute  will  it  could  have 
done  what  it  pleased;  dissolved  immediately  on  learn- 
ing the  purpose  for  which  it  was  convened,  rejected 
or  modified  the  Wesleyan  Episcopacy,  sought  Orders 
from  the  Church  of  England,  become  Presbyterian,  or 
returned  in  a  body  to  the  mother  Church. 

The  Conference  of  1844  was  of  another  charac- 
ter. It  was  a  regular  General  Conference.  It  was  a 
delegated  body,  acting  under  a  Constitution.  It 
could  not  do  as  it  pleased.  It  was  limited  by  the 
Six  Restrictive  Rules,  one  of  which  was,  "They  shall 
not  do  away  Einseopacy,"  which  meant  the  kind 
of  Episcopacy  received  from  Wesley,  accepted  by  the 
Church,  and  existing  in  the  Church  at  the  time  the 
Six  Restrictive  Rules  were  adopted  as  safeguards 
to  the  Constitution. 

The  limitation  of  the  authority  of  the  agents  in 
1844  by  these  Restrictive  Rules  is  recognized  by  the 
149 


Notes 


Court,  but  it  avoids  the  fatal  consequences  of  its  ad- 
mission by  assuming  that  these  rules  were  not  vio- 
lated in  1844.  This  can  not  be  accepted.  In  dividing 
the  Church,  the  Episcopacy  was  I  united  as  to  juris- 
diction over  the  territory  formerly  occupied  by  the  un- 
divided Church,  and  "the  general  plan  of  our  itiner- 
ancy" in  the  United  States  was  destroyed.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844  had  no  more  constitutional 
right  to  limit  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Episcopacy  than 
it  had  to  destroy  it  altogether.  The  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  was  fully  aware  of  constitutional  pro- 
hibitions in  the  way  of  division,  so  much  so  that  when 
the  unconstitutionality  of  division  was  suggested,  it 
was  at  once  declared  by  those  who  drew  up  the 
"Plan"  that  division  of  the  Church  by  act  of  General 
Conference  was  not  before  the  Conference,  and  this 
statement  was  not  challenged  by  any  member  of 
the  Conference.  When  the  Committee  of  Nine  re- 
ported the  "Plan,"  the  impression  was  that  it  pro- 
vided for  division.  The  General  Conference  Journal 
for  1844  contains  reports  of  the  discussion,  but  it 
is  better  to  quote  from  the  History  of  the  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Hnnth,  com- 
piled and  published  by  the  authority  of  that  Church: 
"Mr.  Griffith  opposed  the  measure,  and  denied 
the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  divide 
the  Church"  (p.  92).  "Dr.  Bangs  explained  the 
composition  of  the  committee,  as  formed  by  three 
from  the  South,  three  from  the  Middle  States,  and 
three  from  the  North.  They  were  instructed,  by  a 
resolution  of  the  Conference  how  to  act  in  the  prem- 
ises; that  if  they  could  not  adjust  the  difficulties 
amicably,  they  were  to  provide  for  separation  if  they 
could  do  so  constitutionally.  Under  such  instruc- 
tions the  committee  went  out  and  proceeded  to  in- 
150 


]^OTES. 


terchange  their  thoughts  upon  the  subject.  Great 
difficulties  arose,  which  were  revolved  in  their 
minds,  and  after  two  days  of  close  labor,  after  minute 
inspection  and  revision  of  every  sentence,  they  had 
presented  this  report,  from  which  the  Conference 
would  see  that  they  had  at  least  obeyed  their  in- 
structions, and  had  met  the  constitutional  difficulty 
by  sending  round  to  the  Annual  Conferences  that 
portion  of  the  report  which  required  their  concur- 
rence. The  speakers  who  have  opposed  that  report 
have  taken  entirely  erroneous  views  of  it.  It  did 
not  speak  of  division — the  word  had  been  carefully 
avoided  through  the  whole  document — it  only  said, 
"In  the  event  of  a  separation  taking  place,"  throw- 
ing the  responsibility  from  off  the  shoulders  of  the 
General  Conference  and  upon  those  who  should  say 
that  such  a  separation  was  necessary.  (Page  94.) 
Other  members  of  the  committee  spoke  to  the  same 
effect.  Dr.  Winans  said:  "They  were  not  sending 
around  to  the  Annual  Conferences  any  proposition 
in  which  the  action  of  the  South  in  reference  to  the 
separation  was  concerned.  The  only  proposition 
was,  that  they  might  have  liberty,  if  necessary,  to  or- 
ganize a  separate  Conference."  "Mr.  Hamline  would 
state  the  views  of  the  Committee  on  the  subject. 
They  had  carefully  avoided  presenting  any  resolu- 
tion which  would  embrace  the  idea  of  separation 
or  division."     (Page  98.) 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  from  the  records  of  the 
Church  South  itself,  that  no  resolution  to  divide  the 
Church  was  prepared  by  the  Committee  of  Nine;  that 
the  committee,  after  long  and  laborious  inspection 
of  every  sentence,  carefully  avoided  the  idea;  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not,  by  its  own 
act,  vote  on  a  resolution  to  divide,  and  that  there- 
151 


ISTOTES. 


fore  that  General  Conference  did  not  divide  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

This  note  is  already  much  extended,  but  the  im- 
portance of  the  subject  will  justify  a  few  more  re- 
marks on  this  famous  decision.  With  all  due  respect, 
it  seems  illogical  to  argue,  as  the  Court  does,  that 
because  the  organizers  of  the  Church  in  1784  could 
have  constructed  two  ecclesiastical  organizations 
over  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  therefore  the 
power  to  do  so  could  be  exercised  at  any  subsequent 
time.  If  this  is  true  of  the  Conference  of  1784,  it 
was  equally  true  of  the  Conferences  up  to  1796.  They 
were  all  of  a  kind.  But  such  an  argument  overlooks 
the  altered  conditions,  the  radical  change  in  the 
government  of  the  Church,  the  transition  from  an  ab- 
solute form  of  government  to  a  constitutional  form. 
It  may  not  be  worth  while  to  deny  the  power  of 
the  ministers  of  1784  to  do  as  they  pleased,  but  it  is 
both  morally  and  historically  certain  that  they  could 
not  have  constituted  two  ecclesiastical  organizations 
over  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  at  the 
same  time  have  obeyed  the  wUl  and  carried  out 
the  intention  of  Wesley,  whom  they  acknowledged  as 
their  head,  and  whose  comraands  they  had  promised 
to  obey.  Wesley  intended  and  provided  for  one 
Church,  not  two,  nor  three,  and  if  those  ministers 
accepted  his  provisions,  as  they  did,  including  the 
Episcopacy  he  instituted,  they  were  not  at  liberty 
to  do  otherwise  than  to  carry  out  his  purpose.  We 
need  not  extend  this  note  further  by  considering 
the  case  of  the  Church  in  Canada.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  can  not  accept  the  theory  that 
the  General  Conference  may  constitutionally  divide 
the  Church  into  fragments,  or  fragments  of  frag- 
ments, and  thus  destroy  it  wholly,  on  the  ground 
152 


ISTOTES. 


that  because  the  Convention  of  1784  had  the  power 
not  to  constitute  the  Church  at  all,  therefore  any 
General  Conference  has  the  inherent  right  to  de- 
stroy it. 

Assuming  that  the  Revolutionary  Congress  of  1776 
had  the  power  to  adopt  some  other  form  of  govern- 
ment than  the  one  they  did  adopt,  shall  it  be  as- 
sumed that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  had 
the  power  at  any  time  since  then  to  divide  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  and  has  that  power 
now?  It  will  not  do  to  say  there  is  no  analogy  be- 
tween the  cases,  because  all  power  is  vested 
in  the  General  Conference,  and  no  power  not  ex- 
pressed is  vested  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  "full  power"  granted  the  General  Con- 
ference by  the  Constitution  is  under  restrictions,  and 
is  granted  expressly  "for"  the  welfare  of  the  Church, 
and  not  for  its  destruction,  as  the  Preamble  of  the 
original  Constitution  shows. 

Finally,  up  to  the  date  of  the  Louisville  Conven- 
tion, May  17,  1845,  all  the  ministers  and  laity  in  the 
Southern  Conferences  were  members  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  were  subject  to  her  rules 
and  regulations.  This  was  twelve  months  after  the 
General  Conference  of  1844.  The  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  was  still  the  one,  undivided  Church  in 
the  United  States.  But  on  that  date,  May  17,  1845, 
by  their  own  voluntary  act,  and  without  compul- 
sion from  any  source,  the  Southern  Conferences  sev- 
ered their  connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church;  they  withdrew  from  her  communion,  as  any 
private  member  had  the  undoubted  right  to  withdraw, 
and  became  a  separate  and  distinct  organization.  On 
that  date  the  Louisville  Convention,  composed  ot 
delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences,  and  not 
153 


Notes. 


the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"Be  it  resolved  by  the  Delegates  of  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
slaveholding  States  in  General  Convention  assembled. 
That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary  to  erect 
the  Annual  Conferences  represented  in  this  Conven- 
tion into  a  District  Ecclesiastical  Connection,  sepa- 
rate from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at 
present  constituted;  and,  accordingly,  we,  the  dele- 
gates of  said  Annual  Conferences,  acting  under  the 
provisional  plan  of  separation,  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare 
the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said  Annual 
Conferences,  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  entirely  dissolved;  and  that 
said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be,  and  they  hereby 
are,  constituted  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection 
...  to  be  known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South."* 

Thus  was  the  Church  divided,  if  ever  divided  at  all, 
not  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  but  by  the 
action  of  the  Louisville  Convention  of  1845. 

Page  75.  The  General  Conference  may  not  dispose 

of.  There  seems  to  be  a  contradiction  between  this 
decision  and  the  action  of  this  same  General  Con- 

*Hlstoryof  the  Organizntloa  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  comprehentUng  all  the  official  proceedings  of 
the  General  Conference,  the  Southern  General  Conferences, 
and  the  General  Convention,  with  such  other  matters  as  are 
necessary  to  a  Right  Understanding  of  the  Case.  Nashville, 
compiled  and  published  by  the  editors  and  publishers  of  the 
Southwestern  Christian  Advocate,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  By  oider  of  the  Louisville  Convention.  Wil- 
liam Cameron,  printer,  1845. 

154 


Notes. 


ference  in  adopting  the  Report  of  the  Commission 
on  Federation,  which  contains  adjustments  of  prop- 
erty claims  as  a  finality.  The  history  of  the  subject 
is  as  follows:  The  General  Conference  of  1876 
adopted  a  resolution,  to-wit: 

"Resolved,  That,  in  order  to  remove  all  obstacles 
to  formal  fraternity  between  the  two  Churches,  our 
Board  of  Bishops  are  directed  to  appoint  a  Commis- 
sion, consisting  of  three  ministers  and  two  laymen 
to  meet  a  similar  Commission  authorized  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  adjust  all  existing  difficulties." 

The  Commission  was  appointed.  The  Church 
South  appointed  its  Commission.  The  Joint  Commis- 
sion met  at  Cape  May  City,  N.  j.,  August  17,  1876. 
Among  the  "obstacles"  to  be  removed  were  the  con- 
tentions arising  over  disputed  claims  to  Church 
property.  On  the  second  day  the  Joint  Commission 
adopted  certain  rules  for  the  settlement  of  these  dif- 
ficulties. By  these  rules  much  Church  property 
passed  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  producing  no 
small  discontent  among  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  which  discontent  voiced  itself  in 
the  resolution  presented  by  E.  P.  Phelps,  of  Virginia, 
in  the  General  Conference  of  1880,  and  adopted  by 
that  body.  To  that  same  body  the  Commission  on 
Fraternity  made  its  report.  Here  the  contradictory 
action  begins.  The  General  Conference  had  already 
decided  that  it  had  no  power  to  dispose  of  Church 
property.  But  by  action  of  the  Commission,  Church 
property  had  been  transferred.  On  May  8,  1880, 
the  report  of  the  Commission  comes  before  the  Con- 
ference. 

John  P.  Newman  moved  to  take  up  the  order  ot 
155 


ISTOTES. 


the  day;  namely,  the  report  of  the  Commission  on 
Fraternity,  appointed  by  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence; and  the  motion  prevailed. 

Clinton  B.  Fisk  presented  the  report,  which  was 
read. 

E.  P.  Phelps  called  up  the  resolution  presented  by 
him  on  yesterday  [a  resolution  referring  to  the  action 
of  the  Commission  in  the  cases  of  a  church  and  a 
parsonage] . 

G.  S.  Hall  moved  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on 
the  State  of  the  Church,  which  motion  was  laid  on 
the  table. 

E.  P.  Phelps  moved  to  reconsider  so  much  of  the 
report  as  relates  to  Harmony  Church,  and  the  Hills- 
borough parsonage,  both  in  the  State  of  Virginia. 

Clinton  B.  Fisk  raised  a  point  of  order  as  to  the 
powers  of  the  Commission. 

Bishop  Simpson  presented  the  following  decision 
as  to  the  point  of  order: 

It  is  the  judgment  of  the  Chair  that,  while  he 
believes  the  action  was  designed  to  be  final,  yet  he 
thinks  the  General  Conference  must  decide  the  ques- 
tion for  itself. 

William  Brush  moved  to  refer  the  report  and  the 
whole  subject  to  a  Committee  of  seven,  which,  on 
motion,  was  laid  on  the  table. 

George  S.  Hare  moved  the  adoption  of  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

Resolved,  That,  without  expressing  any  opinion 
of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  the  action  of  the  Com- 
mission on  Fraternity,  we  regard  the  action  in  good 
faith  and  as  a  finality. 

James  M.  Buckley  moved  the  adoption  of  the 
following  amendment,  so  that  the  resolution  shall 
read: 

156 


N'OTES. 


■  Resolved,  That  we  regard  the  action  of  the  Com- 
mission on  Fraternity,  appointed  by  the  last  General 
Conference,  as  final. 

The  previous  question  was  ordered,  and  the  amend- 
ment of  J.  M.  Buckley  was  adopted,  and  the  resolu- 
tion of  G.  S.  Hai-e,  as  amended,  was  adopted. 

Ammi  S.  Ladd  moved  that  all  reference  to  the 
subject  be  expunged  from  the  Journal,  which  motion 
was  laid  on  the  table.  (Gen.  Conf.  Journal,  1880, 
159,  160.) 

Page  89.  Laymen  are  members  of  the  Church,  etc. 
If  this  ruling  is  to  be  taken  literally,  and  nothing 
is  to  be  read  into  it  that  may  not  be  strictly  inferred 
from  it,  then  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  are  laymen;  for,  while  they  are  members  ol 
the  Church,  they  are  not  members  of  an  Annual 
Conference. 

It  can  not  be  said  that  the  ruling  relates  to  Church 
members  who  are  not  ministers,  and  does  not,  there- 
fore, place  Bishops  in  the  category  of  laymen.  The 
ruling  does  not  make  such  explanation,  nor  would  it 
avail  anything  if  it  were  made,  since  ordained  local 
preachers  are  ministers,  and  they  are  laymen  in  that 
they  are  not  members  of  an  Annual  Conference. 


APPENDIX. 


OEGANIC  LAW  AS  ADOPTED  BY  THE 
GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

PREAMBLE. 

In  order  the  better  to  preserve  our  historic  her- 
itage, and  the  more  effectually  to  co-operate  with 
other  branches  of  the  one  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  advancing  the  kingdom  of  God  among  men,  we, 
the  ministers  and  laymen  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  accordance  with  the  methods  of  constitu- 
tional legislation  in  force  among  us,  hereby  ordain, 
establish,  and  set  forth  as  the  fundamental  law  or 
Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the 
Articles  of  Religion,  the  General  Rules,  and  the 
Articles  of  Organization  and  Government,  here  fol- 
lowing, to-wit: 

DIVISION  I. 
Articles  of  Religion. 

DIVISION  II. 
The  General  Rules. 

DIVISION  III. 
Articles  of  Organization  and  Government. 
PART  I. 

Pastoral  Charges,  Quarterly  and  Annual  Conferences. 

Article  I. — Pastoral  Charges. 
Members  of  the  Church  shall  be  divided  into  local 
societies,  one  or  more  of  which  shall  constitute  a 
pastoral  charge. 

158 


Okganic  Law. 


Article  II. — Quarterly  Conferences. 

A  Quarterly  Conference  shall  be  organized  in 
each  pastoral  charge,  and  be  composed  of  such  per- 
sons and  have  such  powers  as  the  General  Con- 
ference may  direct. 

Article  III. — Annual  Conferences. 

The  traveling  preachers  shall  be  organized  by 
the  General  Conference  into  Annual  Conferences, 
the  sessions  of  which  they  are  required  to  attend. 

PART  II. 
The  General  Conference. 

Article  I. — How  Composed. 

The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates,  to  be  chosen  as  here- 
inafter provided. 

Article  II. — Ministerial  Delegates. 

§  1.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to 
at  least  one  ministerial  delegate.  The  General  Con- 
ference shall  not  allow  more  than  one  ministerial 
delegate  for  every  fourteen  members  of  an  Annual 
Conference,  nor  less  than  one  for  every  forty-flve: 
but  for  a  fraction  of  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  num- 
ber fixed  by  the  General  Conference  as  the  ratio  of 
representation  an  Annual  Conference  shall  be  en- 
titled to  an  additional  delegate. 

§  2.  The  ministerial  delegates  shall  be  elected  by 
ballot  by  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conference, 
at  its  session  immediately  preceding  the  General 
159 


Appendix. 


Conference.  Such  delegates  shall  be  elders,  at  least 
twenty-five  years  of  age,  and  shall  have  been  mem- 
bers of  an  Annual  Conference  four  successive  years, 
and  at  the  time  of  their  election  and  at  the  time  of 
the  session  of  the  General  Conference  shall  be  mem- 
bers of  the  Annual  Conference  which  elected  them. 
An  Annual  Conference  may  elect  reserve  delegates, 
not  exceeding  three  in  number,  and  not  exceeding 
the  number  of  its  delegates. 

§  3.  No  minister  shall  be  counted  twice  in  the 
same  year  in  the  basis  for  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  General  Conference,  nor  vote  in  such  elec- 
tion where  he  is  not  counted,  nor  vote  in  two  Con- 
ferences in  the  same  year  on  a  constitutional  ques- 
tion. 

Article  III. — Lay  Delegates. 

§  1.  A  Lay  Electoral  Conference  shall  be  consti- 
tuted quadrennially,  or  whenever  duly  called  by  the 
General  Conference,  within  the  bounds  of  each  An- 
nual Conference,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  lay  del- 
egates to  the  General  Conference,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  voting  on  constitutional  changes.  It  shall 
be  composed  of  lay  members,  one  from  each  pas- 
toral charge  within  its  bounds,  chosen  by  the  lay 
members  of  the  charge  over  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  in  such  manner  as  the  General  Conference  may 
determine.  Each  pastoral  charge  shall  also  elect 
in  the  same  manner  one  reserve  delegate.  Mem- 
bers not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and 
holding  membership  in  the  pastoral  charges  electing 
them,  are  eligible  to  membership  in  the  Lay  Elec- 
toral Conference. 

§  2.  The  Lay  Electoral  Conference  shall  assem- 
ble at  the  seat  of  the  Annual  Conference  on  the 
160 


Organic  Law. 


first  Friday  of  the  session  immediately  preceding 
the  General  Conference,  unless  the  General  Confer- 
ence shall  provide  otherwise. 

§  3.  The  Lay  Electoral  Conference  shall  organize 
by  electing  a  president  and  secretary,  shall  adopt 
its  own  rules  of  order,  and  shall  be  the  judge  of  the 
election  returns  and  qualifications  of  its  own 
members. 

§  4.  Each  Lay  Electoral  Conference  shall  be 
entitled  to  elect  as  many  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference  as  there  are  ministerial  delegates  from 
the  Annual  Conference.  A  Lay  Electoral  Conference 
may  elect  reserve  delegates,  not  exceeding  three  in 
number,  and  not  exceeding  the  number  of  its  dele- 
gates.   These  elections  shall  be  by  ballot. 

§  5.  Lay  members  twenty-five  years  of  age  or  over, 
holding  membership  in  pastoral  charges  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conference,  and  having 
heen  lay  members  of  the  Church  five  years  next 
preceding,  shall  be  eligible  to  election  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Delegates-elect  who  cease  to  be 
members  of  the  Church  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Lay  Electoral  Conference  by  which  they  were 
elected  shall  not  be  entitled  to  seats  in  the  General 
Conference. 

Article  IV. — Credentials. 

The  secretaries  of  the  several  Annual  and  Lay 
Electoral  Conferences  shall  furnish  certificates  ol 
election  to  the  delegates  severally,  and  send  a  cer- 
tificate of  such  election  to  the  secretary  of  the  pre- 
ceding General  Conference  immediately  after  the 
adjournment  of  said  Annual  or  Lay  Electoral  Con- 
ference. 

11  161 


Appendix. 


Article  V. — Sessions. 

§  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  at  ten 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  first  Wednesday  in  the 
month  of  May,  in  every  fourth  year  from  the  date 
of  the  first  Delegated  General  Conference — namely, 
the  year  of  our  Lord  1812 — and  at  such  place  in 
the  United  States  of  America  as  shall  have  been 
determined  by  the  preceding  General  Conference, 
or  by  a  Commission  to  be  appointed  quadrennially 
by  the  General  Conference,  and  acting  under  its 
authority;  which  Commission  shall  have  power  also 
in  case  of  emergency  to  change  the  place  for  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Conference,  a  majority  of 
the  General  Superintendents  concurring  in  such 
change. 

§  2.  The  General  Superintendents,  or  a  majority 
of  them,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have  the  power  to  call 
an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference  at  any 
time,  constituted  in  the  usual  way;  such  session  to 
be  held  at  such  time  and  place  as  a  majority  of 
the  General  Superintendents,  and  also  of  the  above 
Commission,  shall  designate. 

§  3.  In  case  of  a  great  emergency  two-thirds  of 
the  General  Superintendents  may  call  special  ses- 
sions of  the  Annual  Conferences,  at  such  time  and 
place  as  they  may  think  wise,  to  determine  the 
question  of  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, or  to  elect  delegates  thereto.  They  may  also, 
in  such  cases,  call  extra  sessions  of  the  Lay  Electoral 
Conferences  for  the  purpose  of  electing  lay  dele- 
gates to  the  General  Conference. 


163 


Organic  Law. 


Article  VI. — Presiding  Officers. 

§  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  elect  by  bal- 
lot from  among  the  traveling  elders  as  many  Gen- 
eral Superintendents  as  it  may  deem  necessary. 

§  2.  The  General  Superintendents  shall  preside 
in  the  General  Conference  in  such  order  as  they 
may  determine;  but  if  no  General  Superintendent  be 
present,  the  General  Conference  shall  elect  one  of  its 
members  to  preside  pro  tempore. 

§  3.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence shall  decide  questions  of  order,  subject  to  an 
appeal  to  the  General  Conference;  but  questions  of 
law  shall  be  decided  by  the  General  Conference. 

Article  Vll. — Organization. 

When  the  time  for  opening  the  General  Confer- 
ence arrives  the  presiding  officer  shall  take  the  chair, 
and  direct  the  secretary  of  the  preceding  General 
Conference,  or  in  his  absence  one  of  his  assistants, 
to  call  the  roll  of  the  delegates-elect.  Those  who 
have  been  duly  returned  shall  be  recognized  as  mem- 
bers, their  certiflcates  of  election  being  prima  facie 
evidence  of  their  right  to  membership;  provided, 
however,  that  in  case  of  a  challenge  of  any  person 
thus  enrolled,  such  challenge  being  signed  by  at  least 
six  delegates  from  the  territory  of  as  many  different 
Annual  Conferences,  three  such  delegates  being  min- 
isters, and  three  laymen,  the  person  so  challenged 
shall  not  participate  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  except  to  speak  on  his  own  case, 
until  the  question  of  his  right  shall  have  been  de- 
cided. The  General  Conference  shall  be  the  judge 
of  the  election  returns  and  qualifications  of  its  own 
members. 

163 


Appendix. 


Article  VIII. — Quorum. 

When  the  General  Conference  is  in  session  it  shall 
require  the  presence  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  num- 
ber of  delegates  to  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  tran- 
saction of  business;  but  a  less  number  may  take  a 
recess  or  adjourn  from  day  to  day  in  order  to  secure 
a  quorum,  and  at  the  final  session  may  approve  the 
Journal,  order  the  record  of  the  roll-call,  and  ad- 
journ sine  dk. 

Akticle  IX. — Voting. 

The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  deliberate 
together  as  one  body.  They  shall  also  vote  together 
as  one  body  with  the  following  exception:  A  separate 
vote  shall  be  taken  on  any  question  when  requested 
by  one-third  of  either  order  of  delegates  present 
and  voting.  In  all  cases  of  separate  voting  it  shall 
require  the  concurrence  of  the  two  orders  to  adopt 
the  proposed  measure;  except  that  for  changes  of 
the  Constitution  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Conference  shall  be  sufficient,  as  provided  in 
Article  XI. 

Article  X. — Powers  and  Restrictions. 

The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  power  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church  under 
the  following  limitations  and  restrictions,  namely: 

§  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke, 
alter,  nor  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  es- 
tablish any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  con- 
trary to  our  present  existing  and  established  stand- 
ards of  doctrine. 

§  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  organize 
164 


Organic  Law. 


nor  authorize  the  organization  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence with  less  than  twenty-five  members. 

§3.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor 
alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to 
do  away  Episcopacy,  nor  destroy  the  plan  of 
our  itinerant  General  Superintendency;  but  may 
elect  a  Missionary  Bishop  or  Superintendent  for  any 
of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his  Episcopal  juris- 
diction to  the  same  respectively. 

§  4.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke  nor 
change  the  General  Rules  of  our  Church. 

§  5.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  deprive 
our  ministers  of  the  right  of  trial  bv  the  Annual 
Conference,  or  by  a  Select  Number  thereof,  nor  of 
an  appeal;  nor  shall  it  deprive  our  members  of  the 
right  of  trial  by  a  Committee  of  members  of  our 
Church,  nor  of  an  appeal. 

§  6.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  appropriate 
the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Char- 
tered Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit 
of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  and  superannuated 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

Akticle  XI. — Amendments. 

The  concurrent  recommendation  of  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
present  and  voting,  and  of  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  present 
and  voting,  shall  suffice  to  authorize  the  next  en- 
suing General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote 
to  alter  or  amend  any  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Constitution  excepting  §  1,  Article  X ;  and  also,  when- 
ever such  alteration  or  amendment  shall  have  been 
first  recommended  by  the  General  Conference  by  a 
165 


Appendix. 


two-thirds  vote,  then  so  soon  as  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
present  and  voting,  and  two-thirds  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  present  and 
voting,  shall  have  concurred  therein,  such  alteration 
or  amendment  shall  take  effect;  and  the  result  of  the 
vote  shall  be  announced  by  the  General  Superin- 
tendents. 


166- 


INDEX. 


Appeals  must  be  heard   20 

Appeals,  when  admissible  36,  37,  39 

Appellant  must  appear   36 

Appeal  written  prescribed  time   36 

Appellant  must  be  within  jurisdiction  of  Church..  37 

Appeal  must  be  from  a  session   39 

Appeal  must  be  to  Church  Court   39 

Appeal,  right  of,  forfeited  by  minister,  when  49,  52 

Annual  Conference  no  jurisdiction  over  local  elder  76 

Annual  Conference  and  the  Conference  Roll  77 

Annual  Conference,  division  of   78 

Annual  Conference,  right  of  to  locate  a  member. . .  80 
Annual  Conference,  right  of  to  determine  relation 

of  members   81 

Annual  Conference  must  correct  its  error  136 

Appeal  based  on  informality   54 

Bishops  may  appoint  to  another  Methodist  denom- 
ination   63 

Bishops  not  judges  of  moral  character   61 

Bishops,  complaints  against   60 

Bishops  not  members  of  General  Conference   59 

Bishops,  how  constituted   59 

Bishops  may  not  submit  to  a  vote  a  law  of  the 

Church    69 

Bishop  not  a  member  of  General  Conference   50 

Bishop  is  constituted  by  election  See  note  50 

Bishops  in  the  Book  Committee   71 

167 


Index. 


Bishops'  authority  for  meeting  in  council   68 

Bishops  may  omit  insubordinate  Church  from  list 

of  appointments   66 

Bishop  may  divide  a  district   65 

Conference  Claimant's  allowance,  how  determined  80 

Complaints  against  a  Bishop   60 

Chairman  of  Select  Committee  may  not  dismiss 

complaint   112 

Certificate  of  membership  must  be  accepted  99 

Candidate's  name  for  admission  must  be  presented  62 

Churches  may  be  consolidated   61 

Change  of  venue   52 

Deficiency  in  record   42 

Dissent  from  Disciplinary  mode  of  voting   91 

Documentary  evidence  need  not  be  entered  in  Con- 
ference Journal  137 

Decisions  have  force  of  law  24,  25 

Decisions  not  a  precedent   23 

Decisions  are  made  on  issue   22 

Docision  of  trial  court,  when  affirmed   55 

Death  does  not  annul  appeal  47,  48 

Deficiency  in  records   42 

Division  of  property  in  a  divided  Conference   79 

Decision  of  a  Bishop  set  aside  only  by  General 

Conference    64 

Expelled  member's  right  to  appeal  44,  45,  46 

Error,  informality  of,  not  ground  for  appeal   54 

Errors,  when  reversible   33 

Evasion  of  law  a  violation  of  law  117 

Eligibility  of  located  minister  to  election  to  Gen- 
eral Conference   89 

Election  returns  of  Electoral  Conference   95 

Expelled  member  may  appeal   44 

168 


Index. 


Failure  to  express  penalty   56 

Findings,  whole  of,  must  be  considered  116 

Few  in  General  Conference   31 

General  Conference  and  Church  rights   76 

General  Conference  may  not  dispose  of  Church 

property    75 

General  Conference  no  power  to  divide  Church   75 

General  Conference  may  not  decide  every  question  21 
General  Conference  final  Court  of  Appeal   18 

Interpretations  doubtful  not  admissible   31 

Informal  admission  to  Church  membership   99 

Jurisdiction  of  a  Quarterly  Conference  over  a 

preacher  on  trial   86 

Judge,  when  incompetent  132 

Judicial  Conference  may  not  modify  sentence  125 

Judicial  Conference  may  modify  sentence  123 

Judicial  Conference  may  affirm  or  reverse  in  part.  123 
Judicial  Conference  no  authority  to  formulate  new 

charges   114 

Jurisdiction  of  General  Conference   19 

Judicial  power  of  General  Conference   17 

Journals,  General  Conference,  value  of  6,  8 

Legal  decisions  outside  Annual  Conference  not  law  73 
Laymen,  definitions  of   89 

Ministerial  orders  of  the  Roman  Church  102 

Missionary  appropriations  in  a  divided  Conference  85 
Member  of  a  Conference  and  a  record  of  his  with- 
drawal   84 

Missionary  Bishop  may  ordain   70 


New  evidence  not  admissible. 

169 


56 


Index. 


Neglect  to  appeal  forfeits  right  to  appeal   52 

New  trials  on  technical  grounds  119 

Orders  of  Evangelical  Churches,  recognition  of...  103 

Papers  in  case  must  be  identified   55 

Presumptions  in  law   30 

Precedents,  definition  of   26 

Part  of  Judicial  Conference  not  competent  to  hear 

case   128 

Presiding  elder  may  not  give  certificate  Ill 

Penalty  may  not  be  expressed   56 

Papers  in  evidence  must  be  identified   55 

President  of  a  Conference  may  not  submit  to  a 

vote  questions  not  Conference  business   64 


Quarterly  Conference  may  remove  trustees   88 

Questions  of  testimony  are  questions  of  law  130 

Right  of  appeal  forfeited   52 

Removal  of  a  case  is  application  for  new  trial  130 

Record,  the: 

What  it  is   31 

Its  importance   31 

Rights    of    superannuates    and  supernumerary 

preachers  in  Quarterly  Conference  107 

Requisite  for  membership  in  Sunday-school  Board .  100 
Recommendation  for  renewal  of  license  must  be 

granted    86 


Slander,  accusation  of,  when  not  received  113 

Suspended  preacher  forfeits  right  to  preach. .  .37,  109 

Suspended  preacher,  claims  of,  for  salary  108 

Suppression  of  documentary  evidence   40 

Suspended  preacher  no  right  to  officiate   51 

Suppression  of  documents   40 

170 


Index. 


Signers  of  charges  not  members  of  trial  court  126 

Time  required  for  eligibility  to  election  to  General 
Conference    96 

Testimony  before  a  committee  is  evidence  before 
an  Annual  Conference  131 

Trial  not  valid  after  final  adjournment  of  Confer- 
ence  129 

Transfer,  rights  of  a  109 


Verdict  in  control  of  Select  Number  131 

Vote: 

To  obey  Church  law  not  to  be  put   60 

Value  of  27,  29 

Necessary  in  Church  law   28 

Venue,  change  of,  does  not  effect  appeal   52 


When  decision  is  aflSrmed   55 

Want  of  documentary  evidence   40 

Witness  not  testifying  in  open  Conference  137 

Women  may  not  be  licensed  to  preach  105 

Women  not  eligible  to  ministerial  orders  104 

Withdrawal  forfeits  right  of  appeal   52 

Want  of  documentary  evidence  bars  appeal   40 


When  President  of  a  Conference  may  adjourn  it. .  70 


171 


other  Works  by  R.J.  Cooke,  A.M.,D.D. 


OUTLINES  OF  THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  RESURRECTION. 

Biblical,  Historical,  and  Scientific. 
12mo.      90  Cents. 
"A  volume  of  constructive  Biblical  criticism  of  great 
valae."— Northwestern  Christian  Advocate. 
"  It  Is  a  vigorous  treatment  of  the  whole  subject."— JVpw 
York  Observer. 

REASONS  FOR  CHURCH  CREED. 

A  Contribution  to  Present-dat  Controversies. 

12MO.     45  Cents. 
"  An  able  and  eloquent  defensa."— Christian  at  Work. 

CHRIST  AND  THE  CRITICS. 

16mo.     50  Cents. 
"  It  is  a  masterful  presentation  of  the  subject  In  hand." 
— Omaha  Christian  Advocate. 

"The  treatment  is  clear,  able,  and  reassuring."— iVor^/i- 
western  Christian  Advocate. 

"After  discussing  the  subject  with  admirable  fairness 
and  ability  ...  he  gives  a  clear,  frank,  and  definite 
answer."— Christian  Advocate,  New  York. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  RITUAL  OF  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

With  a  Commentary  on  its  Offices. 

12mo.     313  pages.     Index.  Price, 

THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

12MO.  $1.00. 

"The  historic  review  of  the  question  is  ably  handled."— 

Union  Signal. 

"It  is  scholarly,  liberal  minded,  and  convincing."— 
Public  Opinion. 

"  Dr.  Cooke  conducts  his  inquiry  in  the  historic  spirit. ' 

—The  Christian  Intelligencer . 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  CHILDHOOD;  or, 
The  Relation  of  Children  to  the  Church. 

12mo.      bo  Cents. 


CINCINNATI :  yu.  NEW  YORK  : 

JENNINGS  &  PYE.  EATON  &  MAINS. 


DATE  DUE 

